hacker789
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
492
Submissions
108
Member since
Feb 15
Bang.
View on Hacker NewsRecent submissions
Comment · 13 years ago
Across all cultures (perhaps across all of history), women are more risk averse.
In fact, feminist activists didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor.
Only then did it become scandalous that young women were choosing different career paths (but interestingly, the fact that young women are earning more than young men and graduating from college in far greater rates than young men isn't scandalous).
Comment · 13 years ago
Not quite.
One person says, "We deliberately handle women with kid gloves. A under-qualified woman has a better chance than an under-qualified man."
A feminist activist responds, "But you still hire more men! Therefore, it's almost a given that you're biased against women in other ways. Fix it."
The original person says, "Wow. We just can't win with you people."
Comment · 13 years ago
He's concerned about being misconstrued because feminist activists love bullying people with waves of hateful, outrageously uncharitable, deliberately damaging messages at the slightest trigger.
For example, here's what PG recently said on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/416994260995416064):
> Will write about female founders, but traveling all day so it will have to wait. Reserve judgment? Prob too much to hope for, alas.
The responses are typical of feminist activists:
1. > pg translated: "Shut up. All I did in the last decade is not what I believe in, I will graciously explain it to you when I see fit"
2. > Obviously not an important enough issue to deal with now.
3. > please DO NOT write about women founders until you have a better fucking grasp on the issue.
4. > oh don't you even try to equate being a douchebag "startup" founder with being a hacker
The privilege topic has been discussed to death.
If someone were to use "privilege" to mean "unearned benefits for individuals in specific contexts", then no one could have a problem with it. We could talk about:
- female privileges in the workplace
- male privileges in the workplace
- white privileges at university
- black privileges at university
- gay privileges at bars
- straight privileges at bars
- American-born privileges regarding medical care
- Canadian-born privileges regarding medical care
- etc.
Instead, third-wave feminists have transformed the notion of "privilege" into a targeted weapon for belittling and denigrating the specific demographics they deem hostile to their goals.
When a "friendly" demographic does well, it's a result of hard work and determination. For example, when young women earn more than young men, or when young women graduate from college at far higher rates than young men, it's a result of hard work and determination.
Another example: Have you ever seen tptacek complain about the Asian tech problem, the Indian tech problem, or the Jewish tech problem? Nope. Those people worked hard! That is why they're wildly overrepresented. No need to scold them. No need to demand flagellation from them.
But men doing well? White men? Oh god, it's just their privilege. We need to fix this, and we'll know the problem isn't fixed as long as there is any disparity.
Comment · 13 years ago
If my post came across as a generic "men's rights" post, rather than a direct response to the parent, then I didn't do a good enough job of tying it together.
Western culture's hypersensitivity toward women's issues, combined with its blindness toward men's issues, create an environment in which it's socially acceptable (even socially rewarded) to propose draconian measures that further throw young men under the bus that's carrying young women.
We should aim to help people who are suffering in society, rather than aim to help people with vaginas. And we absolutely shouldn't continue obsessing about leveling evening every single predominately male field without doing something to help the young men who are increasingly being left behind.
Comment · 13 years ago
> It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress women, to pigeonhole them into an impoverished gender role concerned only with housekeeping and child rearing.
It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress men, to pigeonhole them into an overworked, hyper-stressed, diseased, prematurely fatal gender role concerned only with selfless providing for and protecting the women and children in their lives.
Feminists look at the 0.1% of men at the top of society throughout history, and willfully ignore the 99.9% of men at the bottom. Those men at the top of society are useful for shoring up sympathy for women; those men at the bottom of society are not.
> Who wants to, as a woman, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy
What a sophomoric, hand-wavy thing to say. Who wants to, as a man, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy, who is actually, literally a powerful boss who says bullying things toward men who don't toe the third-wave feminist line:
http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun
Plus, the man you're trying to ridicule is correct, as a recent large study shows beyond all reasonable doubt ("Penn Medicine Brain Imaging Study Helps Explain Different Cognitive Strengths in Men and Women"):
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/12/verma/
When in life do men's and women's brains diverge? Not during their youngest, most plastic years. Nope. During the surge of sex hormones in puberty. It doesn't mean men or worse or women are worse. It just means that like all other intelligent species, humans have different psychological tendencies between sexes.
> The solution to gender inequality issues is to simply hire women. Hire women and promote women.
This is a terrible idea, unless you only care about ensuring that every company has at least one vagina for every penis. History (and the present) shows us that this sort of widespread coddling is guaranteed to help privileged, connected women at the expense of underprivileged, unconnected men.
Hyper-privileged, connected, powerful men like yourself will have no issues finding a job either way. But young men—who are already out-educated and out-earned by young women—are badly affected, especially those without connections. Considering the lack of personal repercussions, it's little surprise that it's trendy for old, rich men to throw young, poor men under the bus. It's par for the course for history, in fact.
> employers tend to treat similar resumes with male versus female names differently.
Why shouldn't they, especially in the world you want?
Comment · 13 years ago
No, you're describing me, actually.
Comment · 13 years ago
Everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore externalities that cause discomfort to others.
If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort.
A simpler example: "hapless" is all over this thread, causing discomfort for those who don't want this man thrown in prison. Should "hapless" be forced to stop?
Additionally, everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore public goods that they don't pay for. It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, or to pay for a weekly advice newsletter she never signed up for.
People like the man in the article make these value judgments more independently from government policy than most people do. If anything, that is your contention with him, not that he doesn't pay for things he didn't ask for, and not that he sometimes ignores the discomfort caused by his actions.