Hacker News Reader

This seems unlikely (given only what's in the article). She doesn't say that the decline of freestyle was sexist. The point is that the target demographic of commercial skateboard culture shrank drastically. Males—check; males under 18—check. And as it hit each check point it was reducing the population it was going to appeal to.

And your comment doesn't address the specific claims of sexist behavior, like those Enjoi ads or Hubba's "The Girls".

Just because "the target demographic of commercial skateboard culture shrank drastically" doesn't mean it was a conscious or subconscious decision of anybody involved in the industry. I'm sure there were plenty of skateboarding companies that tried to stick with the old style and simply went out of business. Things change, you can't always blame somebody when they do.

On Enjoi: you have to take things in context and even a casual glance at their ads makes it clear they trend towards the offensive and absurd for the sake of being offensive and absurd. They also joke about pooping their pants but I don't think they're trying to advocate for it.

On Hubba: a wheel company I've never heard of that doesn't have a wheel on Amazon's 100 best selling skateboarding wheels list and only has one set of bearings on Amazon's 100 best selling bearings. I'm not sure how they're the representatives of skateboarding culture.

I just don't like the article, I think the people and companies were chosen specifically to support the narrative of sexism. Elissa Steamer and Leticia Bufoni matter more to skateboarding than Hubba Wheels ever will, but their names aren't even mentioned, only the fact that they're told they "skate like guys" but you don't have their names so it's hard to go find the context of what that means in skateboarding. If you watch five minutes of girls and five minutes of guys skateboarding at the XGames you'll realize the girls skate differently, they have a different posture and a totally different style but not really in a good way. They often look uncertain. But as is so common these days the compliments of "skating like a guy" are divorced from context in order to make them look sexist.

> Just because "the target demographic of commercial skateboard culture shrank drastically" doesn't mean it was a conscious or subconscious decision of anybody involved in the industry.

I don't see how this is relevant? A problem is a problem, no matter if it's caused by a someones decision, or by systematic bias.

It's relevant because problems like this default to being the result of "the patriarchy" or sexism.

OTOH you could argue that women were kept out of skateboarding because the entire thing moved below the glass floor (the opposite of the glass ceiling that keeps women out of dangerous jobs) as it became too low-class and dangerous for even poor women. In line with what mtbcoder noted, throughout the eighties and nineties being a skateboarder meant you were an outcast and a criminal. As a society we don't like attaching those terms to women. It was only after several years of the X-Games being on TV and new skateparks being built that the sport gained the sense of legitimacy it enjoys today.

"I'm sure there were plenty of skateboarding companies that tried to stick with the old style and simply went out of business."

All of skateboarding came to the brink of collapse in the late 80s and early 90s. No company was making any kind of money off the sport, only a few made just enough to keep some small sliver still alive. Major brands went under, skate parks went under, shops went under, contests ended, ramps went into disrepair, "vert" was declared dead and anyone who still enjoyed skating was harassed and ostracised as outcasts.

It wasn't until about a decade later that modern skateboarding, as we see it today, saw some hope of resurgence and was able to rekindle itself from the ashes of its former glory. All thanks in part to the those that trudged on during the rough times just for the love of the sport.

>All thanks in part to the those that trudged on during the rough times just for the love of the sport.

I.e. men.

Like IT: There was no money in it, just a load of guys doing it for the love of it. 20 years later there's huge money in it, those guys who were there at the start are at the top of the pile and the women who never previously showed an interest in it are on the sidelines screaming "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WOMYN??!?!".

This whole equality war in IT is becoming incredibly tiring. Endless attacks from a transparent supremacy movement whose members were calling people in IT "nerds" 10 years ago.

I guess those people exist, but they're an awfully small part of it. I mean women have a much higher attrition rate than men once they get into the industry, so it's not just a case of starting at the top.

>The point is that the target demographic of commercial skateboard culture shrank drastically.

If the previous demographic was 50/50 and each were contributing a similar amount of cash to the sport, therefore supporting its commercial viability, why would such a move take place?

Are you saying young males caused the change in culture by being more easily separated from their money? I guess that's possible. But if skaters really threw away their "meritocratic" culture in order to chase money, I wouldn't hold the community up as a model to follow.

Exactly.

It is frustrating to see girls taught that the reason women are under-represented in certain fields is always sexism. In athletics the reasons are patently obvious, but often left unsaid nevertheless.

Sure it is true sometimes. There are definitely more hurdles in front of girls to become programmers, for instance. At the same time, women as a group, in general, simply are not as interested in working quietly with numbers as men are. They tend to be more adept verbally, OTOH, and usually prefer careers that are more social. By far the majority of school teachers and social workers in the US are women.

Perceiving oneself as a victim is extraordinarily limiting. It is the last thing I wish for girls to be taught.

Instead, perceive yourself as incapable on average. That's not limiting at all.

Many good programmers have a certain arrogance. If you must absorb a stereotype, maybe "lots of other women suck" is less likely to discourage you from pursuing a programming career than "the world won't let women be programmers regardless of their skill"?

"Many good programmers have a certain arrogance"

No, I don't think so. Or at least it's not needed to be a good programmer. It's just that if you also have other qualities people don't have to excuse your behavior by how good a programmer you are.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris

That's just another example of this cultures weird relationship with personal qualities. The good version of laziness, impatience and hubris is efficiency, passion and confidence. But if you call it efficiency those who are lazy, or at least hide their decision behind the acceptance of laziness, gets upset. So you instead have to say that you are lazy, but in a good way.

Of course there is also people who hide their decision behind the idea of efficiency.

Call it confidence if you prefer; my original point goes through all the same.

I don't think that thinking other people suck is good way to develop confidence. At least not without experience. If women for the sake of confidence should learn that people suck, it's that most programmers do, not that most women do. I'd rather they develop confidence through experience with programming rather than arrogance toward other programmers. Since the problem with arrogance is that it almost always clashes with reality.

I find this comment and the circumstances surrounding it to be problematic on multiple levels.

-You never actually refute "TheLarch"'s point. Instead you bring down the conversation with unwarranted sarcasm and seem to completely misconstrue the argument. Despite this your comment is positive while the comment that actually contributed to the conversation is downvoted. You could have easily argued their assumptions but chose not to for reasons I might guess at in my next point.

-You essentially take the position that two possibilities exist, A) Institutionalized sexism is the main cause of most gender disparities when it comes to career demographics and definitely not personal choice (even if influenced by social conditioning), or B) Women are incapable on average. Judging by the harshness of your comment I can only assume that you don't that the person you are responding to might consider more possibilities.

This type of thinking is dangerous because it leaves no room for the other side to be simply incorrect. It ceases to be a matter of facts or logic and becomes a matter of morality with anyone who disagrees with you on the wrong side of the moral spectrum. Now anyone who challenges your viewpoint can conveniently be regarded as an immoral person and have their ideas ignored, hidden, or personally mocked.

I don't think I've ever had someone create a throwaway just for me. Thank you.

But women are capable in ways that men are not. They communicate better. I think they are better judges of character, and have superior discernment. They are far less likely to win Darwin awards. Find 100 painfully stupid stunts on Youtube, and at least 85 of them will be men.

Why do we allow males to occupy any position in society, then? That seems stupid.

Your list, if true, suggests that we should keep males around only for breeding purposes, and even that only until we figure out how to get by without them.

"simply are not as interested in working quietly with numbers as men are"

That's frankly a ridiculous statement in this context. Women are en masse working quietly in writing, music, painting, knitting etc. There's also plenty of women medical research, chemistry and economics. I also know of more women with a "profile in the community" in electronics than I do in software, which is probably less social than coding.

"Women are en masse working quietly in writing, music, painting, knitting." None of these involve numbers.

Sincere question: why do you think women are less involved in engineering and more involved in teaching and social work?

Is that what you think a sincere question sounds like?

Whether or not it sounded sincere, it was. I honestly find it an interesting question. I wonder why you are so sure in whatever answer you believe.

Way to ignore basically the entire point the article makes...

Wasn't the central point of the article that skateboarding is a sexist non-meritocracy and that it parallels the tech industry? I could have done more but I tried to address the first two claims in the amount of time I have to spend on the HN tonight. Whether or not it parallels the tech industry is largely a moot point since the first two claims can't withstand scrutiny.

yes indeed... this system of down-voting by HN is certainly not being used as content-control but more as a form of censor-ship and political-correctness(especially when it comes to 'women')....

Funny thing is it jumped up to +3 karma really quickly before going negative. It was -4 before I went to bed and now it's at -2. It looks like the downvoters aren't trying to kill it, they just want it gray.

It's not like I expected to disagree with a template feminist story (X is sexist, if only X was a meritocracy women would be there) without facing the idea that disagreeing with them can only be the product of sexism.

only way to deal with such stupidity is to ignore it and at the right moments crush it.... intelligence cannot win against stupidity.... it is like a clump of clay dashed against an adamantine wall...

edit: the comment your reading was downvoted. I decided to erase it in protest instead of letting you (the reader) read it.

How can that be a protest? Someone who downvotes a comment simply because they disagree with it wants you to never see the comment. This is an object lesson in the repercussions. What was lost? You may never know.