When Women Become Men at Wellesley | Hacker News Reader

When Women Become Men at Wellesley

nytimes.com

49 pointsa5seo66 comments

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

> “I thought he’d do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a white man there. It’s not just about that position either. Having men in elected leadership positions undermines the idea of this being a place where women are the leaders.”

I find this concept both depressing and distressing. Any person can be capable, willing, and qualified to take on a role promoting diversity. Their gender, sex, race, or whatever else should not disqualify them and should hardly be a factor. I guess this shows that prejudice is unfortunately still common in modern society. Discriminating against e.g. white men in such a role is just as abhorrent to me as discriminating against any other groups in other circumstances.

Certainly it's their right not to vote for him, but if the basis of their vote is simply his membership in some group, rather than his character or qualifications, then that's prejudice. It's sad and it needs to stop.

We need to cease over-correcting for past discriminating by propagating new discrimination and prejudice into the modern day.

> I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let's put discrimination to rest by selecting people for roles based on what we know about them as individuals: their capability, qualifications, and character. [Edit: minor rephrasing and added content.]

I find that concept really depressing.

You're not the only one. Apparently even at what should be an enlightened women's college, sexism (and racism) is alive and well.

It is a fascinating double-standard. Compare to a similar sentiment someone might express:

“I thought Obama would do a perfectly fine job, but it just felt inappropriate to have a black man as President of the United States.”

Such a person would be pilloried as a racist.

It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex. A cursory glance at, say, the New York Times shows that such hostility is in fact pervasive—even, bizarrely, among white men themselves.

Why is this astonishing?

"It's astonishing how often people imply or explicitly assert that white men don't understand what it's like to live in a society hostile to their race and sex."

White men do not understand, any more than I understand what it feels like to be a rabbit. Your comment is a clear example of that failure -- actually, it's worse, because you don't even understand the problem intellectually. Some white men do acknowledge their privilege, but even for them, it will never be possible to experience true systemic hostility based on their gender or race.

"Occasionally my gender-race is criticized for the oppression it, as a whole, has and continues to heap on other groups" cries the white man. "Hostility! I understand it!" he says.

Meanwhile, all the other groups deal with actual adversity. I mean things worse than newspaper articles pointing out how you start with advantage. Things like disproportionate violence at the hands of the police and the state, disproportionate victimization with sexual violence, inability to move forward in the corporate world, imbalanced expectations regarding family life, dress, body shape, etc. Even things like being less likely to be called back for a job interview because of your name.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

I like how you assume that he/she is white, or even a man at all.

It's possible that someone from another race or gender feels that white men have it tough. I've never met such a person.

How is it his fault and why should he care? He didn't choose to be born as a white man. He has no more responsibility for his race than any national for their country.

Where did I say it was his fault? If I said that, it was an error. It's not relevant whose fault it is.

(Except if you're referring to the fault of not knowing that he's privileged. That is his fault.)

Why should he care? That's a question about his particular ethical priorities that I could only guess at. Why should any advantaged person care about the disadvantaged?

Suppose I belong to an advantaged group, what good does it do to me if I admit the advantage exists? Why would I ever want to give up this advantage?

Income inequality didn't prevent a rising standard of living for everyone, what makes social inequality inherently bad?

Again, these are questions about your ethical framework that are not answerable by me. Personally I find it detestable and anti-social to try to hoard unearned advantages based on race and gender. If you were my friend and admitted this to me face to face, I would have to seriously consider our relationship. But you aren't my friend, and if you're OK with it there's little I could possibly say to convince you otherwise, especially on the internet.

Hoarding these advantages may make life better for everyone.

> Hoarding these advantages may make life better for everyone.

Ew. What a gross thought. I guess it's convenient to believe for a privileged person, but, ew.

Rich privilege should also really be a thing, people like Bill Gates never used his privilege to make the world a better place.

You don't really need to keep repeating the propaganda from those diversity seminars. We've heard it. And most of us who pay attention know it's all bull. As an example:

disproportionate victimization with sexual violence

Well, look at who is committing all that sexual violence and then talk about how white people are at fault:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0842.pdf

Most of your other comments are similarly flawed. However, the shortest retort to every bitch and moan that comes from the grievance industry is the simple fact that black people in the US have a higher per capita income than any country in Africa [1]. Most other relevant metrics like education, lifespan, and even crime stats paint a pretty good picture for blacks living under the merciless jackboot of evil whites, when compared to living without all that racism. [2]

[1] Actually, except one. That exception has a pretty straightforward explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea#mediaviewer/F...

[2] Example. Note that most exceptions are Arabic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

> Sexual violence ... white people

????? Obviously, I was referring to men as the oppressing group on this point.

Re. the rest, let me make sure I understand your position. "As long as there is someplace black people are worse off than they are in the US, they have nothing to complain about and white privilege doesn't exist." Am I reading you right?

Black people in America are Americans, not Africans. They're not 'Africans who came to America'. They're Americans. Their parents were Americans, as were their parents' parents, for a few generations back. At this point, they're no more African than the white people of America are. It's a pointless comparison.

Yeah, white men, including you, really do not get it.

Dude, you're white—or, at least, you look white [1], which is all the ammunition a Social Justice Warrior needs to accuse you of White Privilege, no matter what your surname is. Realize that, if they ever come after you, it will be people like me who'll defend you.

[1]: From jamesaguilar's HN profile (no cyberstalking required): http://fb.me/james.aguilar

I am white. I do have white privilege. I do not need anyone to defend me from activists seeking equality.

I do not need anyone to defend me from activists seeking equality.

You really need to study the French Revolution. You think that because you're part of the current revolution that it won't eventually consume you as well? Consider Danton and Robespierre, a couple of the original "activists seeking equality" (or, rather, égalité). Danton once thought as you do; on his way to the guillotine he shouted at his former ally, "Robespierre, you will follow me! Your house will be razed! Salt will be sown there!" [1] Robespierre once thought as you do; he met the same fate as Danton less than four months later.

[1]: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Jacques_Danton, « Robespierre, tu me suis ! Ta maison sera rasée ! On y sèmera du sel ! », my translation

Far more worried about an asteroid wiping out life on the planet than I am worried about women and minorities guillotining me.

Don't be so literal. Social Justice Warriors won't guillotine you, but give them half a chance and they will destroy your job and ruin your reputation.

Examples of non-sexist, non-racist people who have lost their jobs due to civil rights activists?

Don't be so naïve—you're a white man. Don't you realize that automatically makes you sexist and racist in many people's eyes?

That's quite a rhetorical leap you just made, there.

As a white man, I agree that I can't REALLY understand what it is like to live in a society hostile to my sex and race. I can try to empathize, but I can't understand it in the same way.

I don't understand what you mean about the NYT. I have never seen a single article that is 'hostile' to white men. Pointing out that white men are in a position of privilege is NOT hostility, it is observation.

>white men are in a position of privilege

It's a statement that undermines everything the person have ever achieved.

You only got here not because of hard work, but because of your `white privilege`. It implies a person's success is undeserved. Yes there's probably is an advantage, but the exact how much is highly debatable.

I think you might be taking the concept of 'white privilege' too personally.

Being in a position of privilege does not imply that everything you have earned you got because of that privilege. You can start off in an advantageous position and still fail or succeed.... and still be worthy of praise for when you do succeed.

Just like in anything else in life... for example, in Basketball it is a 'position of privilege' to be tall. It is objectively easier to succeed in basketball if you are tall, but that doesn't mean that those that DO succeed at the highest levels aren't worthy of praise or somehow did not 'earn' their success. LeBron James has HUGE advantages to being good at basketball, but that just set him up to be in a position where he CAN succeed.. the success itself is still all his achievement.

Google around and you'll find a zillion examples like this one:

Twitter, Like Other Big Tech Companies, Comes Up Short on Diversity

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/twitter-like-other-...

Once you realize that words and phrases like "diversity" and "person of color" are attacks, you'll see the hostility everywhere. For example, when you tell a white man that your company, conference, meetup, etc., is trying to increase its "diversity"—and which one isn't?—what you are actually telling him is we need fewer people like you. And when you realize how many white men support "diversity", et al., you'll understand how bizarre the whole situation really is.

The solution, by the way, is to grow a thick skin, suck it up, and deal. Indeed, there's no other choice at present; in our current political climate, complaining often works wonders for politically favored grievance groups, but no one wants to hear complaints from white men. The political power needed to change this is immense—far greater than the current pathetic attempts to push back (Republicans, the Tea Party, etc.). Best learn to live with it. (I still find it fascinating, though, which is why I can't resist commenting on the phenomenon.)

"Once you realize that words and phrases like 'diversity' and 'person of color' are attack"

Wait, what? No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you', and saying we want diversity is NOT an attack. You have a twisted view of fairness if you feel that wanting to be more inclusive is somehow unfair to the people who were already included.

No, they aren't saying 'we need fewer people like you'

Suppose a conference has 50 speaking slots, 40 of which last year went to white men and 10 of which went to women and "people of color". This year, the organizers are working hard to increase "diversity". For a fixed number of speaking slots, the only way to do this is to decrease the number of white men, since white men—no matter their beliefs, background, hobbies, interests, etc.—don't count as "diverse". Thus, while the organizers' intent is probably not to tell white men that "we need fewer people like you", that message is an inevitable result of efforts to increase "diversity". (Of course, the organizers could also expand the number of speaking slots, but this only works for so long; eventually you'll hit a ceiling, at which point the game again becomes zero-sum.)

I know it's difficult to reconcile these results with the warm & fuzzy feelings you've been taught to associate with "diversity", but it's a mathematical fact: in most of the fields where it's applied, increasing "diversity" means decreasing the number of white men.

Flipping the races (or sexes) around in a statement is often fascinating. Statements that seem benign turn out to be highly racist or sexist, and vice versa.

Nowadays, racism against anyone other than white is despised, and sexism against anyone other than men is despised. Conversely, anti-White racism or anti-male sexism is permitted, and in some circles, condoned and even encouraged. Just the politically correct times that we live in.

It is important to note that they are not being discriminatory without realizing it. On the contrary, they actively disagree with you that the best way to end discrimination is to simply ignore it. This is a deliberate double standard meant to counteract the opposing one women are subjected to by society at large.

The KKK are not being discriminatory without realising it. How do we stop discrimination? By being discriminatory.

> Of all the people at a multiethnic women’s college who could hold the school’s “diversity” seat, the least fitting one was a white man.

I don't know about the "white" part, but putting a man in such a seat would seem to be more appropriate than putting a woman in it.

Doesn't anyone else remember what "diversity" means?

You and the parent are both absolutely correct, in real life.

It's just that iiuc, Wellesley doesn't sell "diversity," but "women."

Wellesley's failure to take a stance on having transmen around indicates hesitation and fear on their part (understandably so, imho) b/c who really knows - at this time - what is fair and just for their product case.

Do they count women who became men as women, b/c that's part of the female experience? Or do they count them as men, b/c they're not women? Who knows.

"Diversity" is code for anti white discrimination. Whenever you hear the word "diversity" know that it very much means deliberate anti white racism. We destroy over 4% of GDP every year on "diversity."

http://vimeo.com/16078350

> rather than his character or qualifications

The idea is that those two (meritocracy) are not the only criteria used when we select our leaders, employees etc. so they resort to saying:

> It’s not just about that position either.

What I think they are saying is that it is not just about the job, which he would do fine, but also about the job of being a woman so that other women can aspire to be like that, feel motivated that people with less privilege than white men can be leaders too. That way you are more qualified for the job.

sorry you have faced so much discrimination as a white man. I hope one day that changes.

By trivialising issues faced by males, can you still claim what you are advocating is equality?

edit: downvotes are really good arguments :^)

I do not thing equality is the right goal yet. For the time being it is active anti-discrimination and this means sometimes we have to discriminate to the advantage of generally disadvantaged groups. As a white male I have also found it annoying witnessing such anti-discrimination induced discrimination in the past, but I now see the reason why it is needed.

"We need to cease over-correcting for past discriminating..."

Maybe so, but do we do the same with discrimination that's very much currently in the effect?

>I guess this shows that prejudice is unfortunately still common in modern society.

Until minorities say it isn't an issue to the same extent white men do, I won't believe prejudice has disappeared. Maybe not then even.

I think you have to acknowledge that a diverse individual brings their experience to a situation. Being part of an interest group gives you greater experience regarding how to advocate for that group.

This article illustrates how trans men are such an interesting problem for feminist institutions. Either you go along with the current trans party line, which is men are men, trans or cis, and they have no place at a women's institution/space. fin. This is an interesting expression of some really rigid thinking about binary gender. Or you take the "women and trans" position and place yourself as an institution for people of oppressed genders. You include anyone in the category of not cis men. You cease to specifically celebrate femininity at that point. You also start defining yourself in terms of cis men, which can be... problematic.

I'm concerned with how this spills out in the tech industry and our current focus on gender. All of the gender equity campaigns at the moment are inclusive of women, the more liberal include trans women, but none of them appear to have any explicit inclusion of trans men or non binary gender people. Which I find curious since trans masculine people often share the same structural issues with cis women being: lack of access to STEM pre-education in gradeschool/highschool, reproductive realities which are disruptive to a tech career, lack of socialization as boys/access to old boys' network. Trans people, including trans masculine people, do not occur in large enough numbers to have multiple tech industry gender advocacy groups and the best they can do is hope that "women's" groups eventually advocate for them.

I know of zero trans men in leadership positions in tech (eg, visible senior/staff engineers at the large companies, or actual management (PM doesn't count)), but I do know of quite a few trans women in these sorts of positions and even more cis women. Of course, the trans men in leadership could all be stealth, as I am (but I'm just a cog in the machine). I've worked in tech long enough, and have heard the stories of cis men when they think they are talking to another cis man, to know that the people tech are still deeply transphobic and we have such a long way to go.

This is a great article. Tons of questions and not many answers, and that's okay. I'm glad to have places to look for inspiration when trying to celebrate my identity as a man in a way that doesn't marginalize anyone. I haven't found any good answers yet. It's really interesting to see how the student body is balancing their desire to be inclusive with a desire to retain an identity and common experiences.

I also appreciated how the author and editor did a great job of making complicated issues about identity and tense and changing pronouns and changing names very simple and human and readable.

There's a whole "have your cake and eat it too" mentality going on here that's kind of upsetting. These trans students are men, and yet they are attending a women's college, living in women's dorms. They're apparently making waves because they're trying to remove the emphasis on gender(and women specifically) from a women's college. In other words, tim is trying to rob the university from its identity because he slipped in through a loop hole and feels discriminated against because (surprise!) the school is purpose built to exclude men. Would you agree with an atheist student at a private religious university trying to remove references to god from the school charter? or a religious student trying to add references to god to a public university charter? Of course not! Got to give it to Wellesley for not kicking his ass out upon realizing that he lied about the primary qualification for attendance, but I don't think that give him the right to try and remake the school in his own image.

I know two people who "become women" to get better treatment at university. Dance around it as you wish, but today women has 60% higher chance to graduate compared to men.

You know two men who became trans for better treatment? Considering the issues trans people face you are full of shit.

Interesting how accounts trying to claim that 'women have it so much better' are always green accounts. If you believe in your comment why not use your actual handle?

Why do you think women have a better chance? What can you do to help men?

Take typical nerd, add mild depression and zero social life. I can ensure you that being trans will not make it much worse and will improve relations with authorities significantly. And in their cases it was 'administrative decision'.

I argued a few times in person, results were unpleasant for my person, I am not going to do it again.

65% graduates are women, men do not even have universal voting right in US. Google is your friend.

Why do you think more women graduate? Why complain that women have it better than actively trying to make it better for men? I'm trying to figure out why you have such a skewed view of society. You're certainly incorrect about how trans people are treated, especially with authorities.

What do you mean men don't have universal voting rights? Are you talking about felons?

Have a look at stats and laws. It is the senate and judges who has this view of society. I am not complaining about women having it better (good for them), I am just complaining men have it worse.

I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can).

EDIT: there were questions about voting right. I can no longer answer since I was down-voted to oblivion. And because I am obviously "full of shit" I will not add links, just three hints:

- Men has to register at two places, instead of just one.

- Voting for men is a reward, not a right

- I am more worried about student loans, not voting.

> I am saying that in most states being over 18, with clean record and mentally capable, does not automatically mean someone can vote (as women can).

What are the situations in which men cannot vote if they are over 18, with a clean record and mentally capable?

My best guess it that they're talking about selective service, but that's really a very minor formality.

I'm guessing the unpopular poster is referring to selective service, for which men (and, TBH, trans women) must register, or forfeit numerous "rights". Because war. I hesitate to articulate this, being cis and all, but the strenuous denunciations of this greenbean seem to hint of something ugly in one's opinions of the whole notion of trans.

As far as I know, I'm no relation to the Jesse Austin interviewed in TFA.

As a trans woman I fully agree with your assessment. They clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

Also, selective service is such an absurdly trivial "obstacle." I registered ages ago, and despite a half-dozen moves (and transitioning) since, I haven't ever done anything else about it.

I think he's talking about the Selective Service System aka the draft.

If you're male and haven't signed the document saying you will die for your country at the whim of a random number generator, you cannot apply for federal student loans.

Also In 40 states (+DC) it is a prerequisite for men to sign up for the draft before getting/renewing a driver's license (maybe any gov ID?). I suppose if that is combined with voter ID laws, yes there could be a subset of men in the US who match the clean description and are still unable to vote. That situation does not apply to women.

That's also assuming not registering for the draft (a max sentence of $250,000 / 5 years in prison) still can be called a 'clean record'. I think so.

> Why do you think more women graduate?

The graduation rate for women is about 5% better than men. It's not possible to answer your question unless you also know how many men vs. women entered university, which I didn't look up.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

So, you are saying that women have more voting rights than men? Where are you getting that from?

When I think of people who have it made in modern day America, "trans women" are right up there at the top.

Did it work? Just because somebody becomes trans doesn't mean they actually get comparable social treatment to a cis woman in practice.

Yes it worked, it is not about being comparable, they just sink bellow radar as a men.

this person is obviously full of shit. nobody becomes a trans woman to receive "better treatment."

Honestly, I know countless gamers who play as women to get free stuff from men. I know if a woman was interested in applying for my engineering school she was flown in and wined and dined and met and fawned over by the deans. All the women's sports teams were fully funded and the men's teams all had to run charity events and sell tickets just to afford equipment. Women have a massive advantage in college applications and college programs in general. I can easily see people going through whatever legal requirements necessary to check female instead of male on their college application. Countless people already fake ADD symptoms to get Adderall to do better on tests. Why do you think they would identify as trans woman anywhere outside getting into college and experience any disadvantages?

homer_silently_backing_himself_into_the_bushes.gif

>“The patriarchy is alive and well,” he said. “I don’t want to perpetuate it.”

I laughed pretty hard at this one, the irony seems pretty lost here for Timothy. This could offer some serious introspection for the echo-chamber that is Wellesley. It's one of those case examples of an entity 'becoming what they hate'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com