Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Michele raises a very good point. This is a problem.

The only successful way I've found to deal with it is rude honesty. "Sorry, I wasn't interested in writing a paper with you, I wanted to touch your boobies." "We can totally work together, but lets be realistic - under other circumstances we'd totally be doing it."

Now it's all out in the open, and can continue in the relationship under whatever circumstances are desired. Or perhaps not continue, in the case that I want to make out and she wants me to prove theorems. Everyone's feelings might be a little hurt ("she doesn't think I'm hot?", "he doesn't think I'm smart?") but that can be solved by growing a pair.

Unfortunately, in the hypersensitive PC world that feminists are pushing on the bigger players in the tech world, you simply can't do that. Too much of a power imbalance - the woman can ruin your reputation with a few tweets. Since there are so few women, the marginal cost to avoiding close relationships with women is also fairly low.

No amount of moral posturing will change the incentives.

View on HN

>"Sorry, I wasn't interested in writing a paper with you, I wanted to touch your boobies." "We can totally work together, but lets be realistic - under other circumstances we'd totally be doing it."

>Or perhaps not continue, in the case that I want to make out and she wants me to prove theorems. Everyone's feelings might be a little hurt ("she doesn't think I'm hot?", "he doesn't think I'm smart?") but that can be solved by growing a pair.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here, assuming it's not tongue-in-cheek. Your way of dealing with with the opposite sex in a professional setting is to:

1. Affirm an absence of a professional relationship 2. Presume sexual attraction, because that's just "realistic" 3. Implicitly suggest that working together is some sort of unbalanced arrangement, rather than just cooperation 4. Justify this all by the need to "grow a pair" (a great cross-gender term, btw)

Honestly, if I was one of a few men in an office and had to work with a bunch of women who operated under these assumptions, I might go tweeting about it.

If you want to argue that the "gray zone" doesn't exist, be my guest. You don't need to wildly misinterpret my proposed solution in order to suggest I'm a villain.

Just in case you honestly misunderstood, let me spell things out.

1. This is what you do when you don't want to work with them and they don't want you grabbing their ass. Be honest about this and end the relationship if necessary.

2. This is what you do when you both want to work together but also you both want to sex it up. Or you can pretend you don't and then let things get weird after a late night makeout session at the office.

3. Huh?

4. Not being a whiny bitch is what you do when someone doesn't want to go out with you, work with you, or whatever. For example the "other employee" who confessed "love" for Horvath needed to grow a pair (assuming the Techcrunch article is accurate). In situation (1), you probably both need to.

The fact is that sometimes in a professional setting, people move on to having nonprofessional relations. Sometimes desires are not aligned. When humans are involved, life gets complicated.

I cannot determine if your comment is in earnest, or if it is an attempt to create a parody of a comment that a sexist asshole would post.

Honestly, I cannot tell.

Now I do believe that if society made it acceptable to just outright ask, with no hard feelings either way "hey, want to go out?" that everything would be better.

I guess my point is that I see the quotes you put forth as being ridiculously extreme examples of what would exist in the minds of only the most lowly of savage males.

> Now I do believe that if society made it acceptable to just outright ask, with no hard feelings either way "hey, want to go out?" that everything would be better.

This, exactly this. The problem is that the asker has to be able to take no as an answer, and deal with it. Which means not asking multiple times in rapid succession, or even asking often. And everyone involved (including friends) needs to make sure they don't shame the people involved in the exchange.

A lot of gendered problems enter this equation (at least for heterosexuals, I'm sure many other complicated societal problems (some of them related) exist for homosexuals). For example a problem for men is they have a lot of pressure to not be wrong and hence only ask women out when it's a sure, or very likely, thing. For example a problem for women is rape (i.e. rape culture, slut shaming, etc.), so they tend to hang out with their friends for protection, which makes it hard for (generally female) people to have (or talk about) a relationship without a lot of people knowing about it (you know, to back up that they aren't a slut, in case they get raped (I realize people here are pretty liberal, and that sounds horrid, but it's why some women often stick together and 'gossip')). Oh, by the way, one of those things is not like the other, one is a massive societal problem, one is merely a societal pressure, but both, among many others, need to be dealt with.

The comment is earnest. The fact that people on HN make similar comments and believe what they say is proof that sexism is a problem.

It's also why people flag submissions like this - the comments are full of vile hateful idiocy.

What do you mean? What did I say that is either "vile and hateful" or "proves sexism is a problem"?

Because your proposed solution to possible working awkwardness is not 'growing a pair', it's making an already awkward moment even more awkward, or possibly scary. Now not only does she have to deal with your blustery bravado in the moment, she also has to worry about unwanted advances in future situations where you might be alone together.

What you seem to think is candid, useful communication is anything but.

If you are attracted to someone you're going to be working closely with, there is a time-honored approach for dealing with it. You flirt. If you're good at flirting, then it is non-serious and does not create a threatening atmosphere. It shows off your positive personality qualities and hides your negative ones.

Most importantly, it gives the lady in question an out if she doesn't want to go there with you, she simply doesn't respond. If she doesn't respond to your flirting, then she's not interested and the stand-up, manly thing to do is to stop flirting, and carry on your working relationship in a completely professional manner.

> If you are attracted to someone you're going to be working closely with, there is a time-honored approach for dealing with it. You flirt.

Oh come on, with the romance and everything. Don't you see that our friend yummyfajitas here has bodies to fuck?

He is really just trying to help society to a more sophisticated and unfiltered understanding of his urgent needs and minimal concern to the accidental personality that may be contained in those bodies he desires.

Back before he was ushering in his new era of "rude honesty", it might have taken weeks to figure out whether a body is available to be penetrated by his penis. Now we can all rest assured that he will save himself and the bodies he surely deserves to boob-touch to his hearts content (if the feeling is mutual, of course, he's not a monster!) a good chunk of time.

It's really a win-win.

I think you're on to something with the 'flirting' thing. Unfortunately, most of us probably don't know how to very well- especially when it comes to reading the other person's intent.

It is OK to get things wrong, too. I mean, ideally, you'll look for romantic partners outside the workplace, but if you must look at work, it can still be OK. If you flirt, you think the other person is flirting back, you ask them out, and they reject you, that is neither sexual harassment nor a grave offense.

Example approach (in our scenario, this is toward the end of a workday, which is when you would want to do anything like this): "Hey, I've been having a lot of fun working with you, would you want to get dinner together sometime?" "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm [not looking for a relationship right now|seeing someone else|not interested in you that way|...]." "Oh, shoot. Well, I'll see you tomorrow then." (Go home.)

It may be a little awkward, but if you do things respectfully, then it will probably not ruin the working relationship. And more importantly, you'll have flattered the person you're working with, not creeped them out or made their workplace environment hostile, not cemented yourself in their mind as a total asshole, and not put yourself at risk for getting fired for harassment.

Of course, you will never do this to one of your reports or their transitive reports unless you would like to lose your job. Only peers or members of another org.

I asked why my proposed solution was "vile and hateful", not why you believe it to be ineffective.

I don't know that it's "vile and hateful", but it might make things uncomfortable.

Revealing that you have sexual feelings for a person with whom you're nominally supposed to be forming a sexless, professional relationship will either lead down a path to sexual or romantic connection, or else make things tremendously awkward. That's not a sexist act, necessarily, but it could lead to a conversation with HR.

> The only successful way I've found to deal with it is rude honesty.

This is entirely hearsay, but the way that people around Waterloo talk about pg, I feel like he does operate this way. But he does so with everyone, not just women.

> Unfortunately, in the hypersensitive PC world that feminists are pushing on the bigger players in the tech world, you simply can't do that.

IIRC there was a study that said people would let you cut in line if you had a reason, even if that reason was nonsense (say, "Please let me cut in line because I need to make copies").

I usually explain my rude honesty as a side-effect of having Asperger Syndrome, although it's actually deliberate coping strategy as opposed to my default behaviour.

On the other hand, if everyone dealt with this through rude honesty, it would still result in inequity, because women would have to deal with all the guys saying they were hot, whereas few guys would have to deal with this. (If you look at the behaviour on dating websites -- the OKCupid blog was good for this before they got bought out by Match.com -- or in an undergraduate Engineering classroom, you'll readily see this.)

> This is entirely hearsay, but the way that people around Waterloo talk about pg, I feel like he does operate this way.

Being a millionaire helps a bit in getting through with this behavior. If a simple wage slave tries anything in the direction of "rude honesty", he'll be out of the door within 2 minutes.

Many people deal with rejection poorly. And many of those that do deal with rejection competently do so using strategies like avoidance that cause problems if you're stuck in a room together eight hours a day. Yes, maybe it'd be nice if the other side "grew a pair", but that's not something you can do anything about. In the end if they "don't have a pair" and you're the one who precipitated the situation with "rude honesty", you're the one who caused the problem, not them.

And that does seem to be much of the problem in Julie's case: she rejected a guy who proceeded to react very poorly. In this case the guy appears to be at fault because he put Julie in a situation where she had to choose one way or another.

I think the OP's point about a grey zone is very apt. We need to tolerate the existence of a grey zone, and not try and make it black or white.

I've never had to work more than peripherally with a woman I've been interested in, but on occasion in the past I have had no choice but to work with men I've disliked. Brutal honesty would have poisoned the situation, but "growing a pair" and behaving professionally ended in success.

> but that can be solved by growing a pair

Really? There are like 5 other phrases you could use that don't exclude (more than) half the people on the planet.

> in the hypersensitive PC world that feminists are pushing on the bigger players in the tech world, you simply can't do that.

Ah, I fell for your trap didn't I (well I didn't, I added the above afterwards, but let's say I did).

First, not all feminists want the same things. It would be like saying: "libertarian utopia that conservatives", or "socialized business environment that liberals". Yes many of the people who espouse those views claim that political identity. But not everyone (or likely even a majority) of the people who claim those political identities espouse the given view. That's like 2 fallacies (false cause fallacy, genetic fallacy) and a misleading rhetorical device (poisoning the well) all in one.

Second, feminism isn't political correctness. It's about equality. And yes equality means you have to stop insulting people's identities, especially when you are part of the privileged group (i.e. you are part of the identity that the in question oppression generally favors). Especially when you are one of the leading companies in the world and you want every customer you can get (Hey lookie! market forces!).

I'm all for your total honesty, even if it's rude, as long as it isn't ridiculing someone's identity (if you can't state your perception of the truth without doing that, then your perception of the truth is flawed because it involves people's identity). Also, your job may require you to work with certain people, so being polite may be a requirement for your job and whatever. (As an example, the (initial) problem discussed here (the github employee) has to do with GitHub (apparently) not making a conducive work environment).

There are like 5 other phrases you could use that don't exclude (more than) half the people on the planet.

I didn't think of any that express the same sentiment - even now, the only alternative I can think of is "stop whining like a bitch". I'm not going to communicate less accurately to avoid "excluding" people - I really don't mind if people who are overly emotional fail to understand me.

First, not all feminists want the same things.

I've certainly never heard feminists advocate greater freedom for men to clearly say "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with. But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?" Can you link to some who feel differently?

Somehow, I strongly suspect the vast majority would rant on twitter and attempt to publicly shame the person involved. I'm well aware that a few feel differently - my cofounder is one of them, but she's about 3 sigma out of the mainstream.

Your talk of "equality" requires a lot of clarification. If you are advocating different standards for people depending on membership in arbitrary groups, then you (or the feminists you are speaking of) are explicitly advocating against equality of individual humans. So what sort of equality are you advocating for?

> Your talk of "equality" requires a lot of clarification. If you are advocating different standards for people depending on membership in arbitrary groups, then you (or the feminists you are speaking of) are explicitly advocating against equality of individual humans. So what sort of equality are you advocating for?

Assuming you mean that not insulting people's identity and equality conflict:

Is it really so hard to not insult people's identities when you talk that the words you would use when you talk to other people would merely insult other identity groups? Perhaps you can talk to and about people without insulting anyone's identities?

> I've certainly never heard feminists advocate greater freedom for men to clearly say "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with. But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?"

Probably because you are sexually objectifying someone? And someone's appearance has nothing to do with work? To clarify, I meant that brutal honesty thing in reference to work. But if you want to say those things to people in public, feel free to do that (although I doubt many women enjoy being treated like sexual objects and called stupid in the same sentence, but there is nothing wrong with saying that).

But if at work you wanted to say, perhaps, "This code is wrong, your understanding of how this works is wrong, go read up on it", then that's the work environment you have, and there is still nothing wrong with that.

But commenting on someone's sexual attractiveness or identity at work isn't honesty related to work it's you being a nympho or a bigot. So saying: "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with." is fine at work. And saying: "But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?" is fine in public (if women who respond to that are your type). So while saying both in public would be strange, saying both in a workplace is unacceptable.

You explicitly said "equality means you have to stop insulting people's identities, especially when you are part of the privileged group". If membership in a privileged group plays any role, then you are not advocating for equality of individuals. If it plays no role, I guess bringing it up was a mistake on your part?

...saying both in a workplace is unacceptable.

Let me see if I understand. It's ok to not want to work with someone (beyond whatever is imposed by your supervisor). It's also ok to ask someone out at work (or are you completely opposed to all workplace relationships, e.g. Horvath's?).

But once you decide you don't want to work with someone, it's no longer ok to ask them out? I'm not following the reasoning here.

Ah, stupid phrasing:

I meant that if you are going to ask someone out, from work, don't do it at work. And definitely don't combine work related stuff (like "you're fired") and personal stuff (like "you wanna date").

Don't contaminate the work place with personal romantic problems. The gray zone is a result of personal romantic problems: you can't talk to and work with a person because they are attractive? Grow a pair. (and the only reason I'm using that is because you used it ;p.)

I'd consider it very offensive. This person openly thinks I'm stupid and still wants to date? There are so many negative feelings there; I cannot even begin do describe them all.

>saying both in a workplace is unacceptable.

I feel like you[1] are missing the point to an extent (or at least taking away something different from the comment than I did). I don't think that yf was asking for permission to say this him[almost certainly]-self. But was demonstrating that as long as men in power think these thoughts, but can't express them, the grey-zone and its associated problems will exist.

The blog post introduces the issue, and yf demonstrates it (all the more by causing so many HNers to bristle at his comment).

I'm not necessarily saying that men in power should start blurting these thoughts out, and they would run great personal risk at doing so. But the situation of the unexpressed existence of these thoughts, perversely hurts women of potential power much, much more than it hurts the men with the thoughts.

I think political correctness is the Nash equilibrium in most remotely similar situations, but that leaves the problems presented in the post, and so... Ultimately, I think that dismissing the hypothetical thoughts-cum-pronouncements as "unacceptable" is counterproductive with regards to lowering the barriers to power for women insofar as we are willing to accept the thesis of the original blog post[2].

OK, now to backtrack a little... I'm not saying that they are acceptable, but I read the hypothetical comments as intentionally built to be considered unacceptable. Under that reading, it's not particularly productive to give them that label and then call it a day. They were, in a way, the unspoken background to the blog post made explicit in a feather-ruffling HN comment, and uncomfortable as it is to consider, putting their existence out there makes it possible to push the conversation forward. But not if we just shame such untoward behavior out of hand. Doing that promotes the status quo. We all get to feel good about ourselves, that we're publicly fighting for the cause, but ultimately nothing gets resolved.

Sorry, I know that that reads as a personal attack. That is not the spirit in which I mean the comment. I think that the urge to suppress or ignore uncomfortable truths is one of the feedback loops that makes discussions on this topic so virulent. It's not meant to be directed at the person that conducts the SolarNet account, but at us all, the community that struggles with the difficult subject of inequity among us. It often feels better to jump to the defense of honor or decorum than to really dig into the ugly truths behind the issues that cause us harm. But when we follow that instinct, we often leave the infection there under the surface to fester. I think that this particular issue is tricky and damaging enough to the community to warrant some leeway on decorum when discussing it.

In the interest of commiseration, I'll admit that I found that I bristled at the comment as well. I'm not endorsing it, but I think that if looked at in the right light, it is a very useful comment. Really, it does nobody any good to try to shame yf (and honestly, judging by this comment alone, I'm not sure that yf is easily shamed). But it is useful to acknowledge the existence of thoughts of this kind (as well as their tamer brethren) since if we fail to do so, we'll be incapable of identifying their role in the problem.

[1] Along with many others commenting on this indelicate comment [2] I for one find the thesis rather compelling

At no point did I take it as a personal attack.

Besides you were right!

I realize (perhaps in hindsight) that the comments were likely chose to be unacceptable. And you are right, I shouldn't have accepted the premise.

Is saying: "I find you attractive, would you like to go out on a date?" in the work place acceptable? Maybe. It depends on the company culture most likely. At Github it appears such a question can't be uttered, because a 'no' response will cause a person's code to be reverted by a scorned suitor (and management do nothing).

I also think that people in power (men in this case) could maybe learn some self control to not act differently around half the people in the world. And I realize it's a societal thing.

A more honest work environment may help the problem, but so would solving the root cause of the problem.

>At Github it appears such a question can't be uttered, because a 'no' response will cause a person's code to be reverted by a scorned suitor (and management do nothing).

Don't generalize based on a single incident, especially since she was already apparently-openly dating someone else when that person asked.

Yea, that makes it worse, not better.

It makes the behavior worse and more inexplicable, which makes it more outlier-seeming.

> I've certainly never heard feminists advocate greater freedom for men to clearly say "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with. But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?" Can you link to some who feel differently?

Do you believe men and women should have equal rights? If so then you are a feminist. Did you say in your first post that men should have the right to be rude and honest about the people they interact with? If so then I use you as my example of a feminist advocate for greater freedom for men.

Feminism is an incredibly misused and misunderstood word. By dismissing all feminists are overly sensitive PC females dismiss those of us who genuinely believe in equal rights.

> I've certainly never heard feminists advocate greater freedom for men to clearly say "sorry, you aren't smart enough for me to work with. But damn girl what an ass - wanna go out?"

I hope they wouldn't advocate for that. I wouldn't even consider that flattering or honest if a woman were to say that to me. It would just be condescending.

The meaning of the sentence doesn't change if you say "growing up", "acting like an adult", or "taking responsibility for yourself".

I should also note that I'm not exactly a fan of your willingness to screw someone you don't respect. But your lack of desire for a real relationship isn't my problem.

I'm not sure why you feel I don't respect someone simply because I don't want to work with them.

Had I thought of them, I would not have used any of the phrasing you suggest because they are insufficiently derogatory.

Consider this guy: The rejection of the other employee [by Julie Ann Horvath] led to...an internal battle at GitHub...hurt from my rejection, started passive-aggressively ripping out my code from projects we had worked on together...

"Act like an adult" doesn't have the same ring as "grow a pair" (although in this case, "stop being a whiny bitch" would be my preferred phrasing).

I wasn't aware there were grown supposed-professionals that talked like you say you do in a workplace setting. If I ran into this personally my opinion of that coworker would drop by a huge amount and I would do my best to avoid them. Frankly if you have many friends (who know you talk like this) I'd be surprised.

Piss off. All this bullshit about people taking some personal attribute or behavior and insisting that it's a major part of their "identity" is nothing more than a defense mechanism for losers.

Oh God. Really?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com