←back to thread

1005 points femfosec | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.808s | source
Show context
DoreenMichele ◴[] No.26613077[source]
I'm really glad to see this here. I don't have a better word readily available than sexism for trying to talk about patterns like this but when I use the word sexism, I think people think I mean "Men are intentionally exclusionary assholes just to be assholes because they simply hate women." and that's never what I'm trying to say.

I find my gender is a barrier to getting traction and my experience is that it's due to patterns of this sort and not because most men intentionally want me to fail. But the cumulative effect of most men erring on the side of protecting themselves and not wanting to take risks to engage with me meaningfully really adds up over time and I think that tremendously holds women back generally.

I think gendered patterns of social engagement also contributed to the Theranos debacle. I've said that before and I feel like it tends to get misunderstood as well. (Though in the case of Theranos it runs a lot deeper in that she was actually sleeping with an investor.)

replies(13): >>26613164 #>>26613190 #>>26613291 #>>26613423 #>>26613710 #>>26614078 #>>26614401 #>>26614781 #>>26615738 #>>26616493 #>>26617059 #>>26619084 #>>26635090 #
cistercianic ◴[] No.26613291[source]
>men erring on the side of protecting themselves and not wanting to take risks to engage with me meaningfully

Do you believe that people should take potentially career-ending risks to benefit you?

replies(2): >>26613310 #>>26613372 #
1. c0d4h ◴[] No.26613372[source]
I don't understand how you ended up with such an interpretation of what she said.

As I understand it, she's saying that the current "politically correct" environment is hurting women more than it helps.

replies(1): >>26613496 #
2. cistercianic ◴[] No.26613496[source]
edit: removing my comment as this seems to be an uncharitable reading.
replies(2): >>26613600 #>>26613740 #
3. dang ◴[] No.26613600[source]
You're breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread. Note this one, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

4. yaml-ops-guy ◴[] No.26613740[source]
You should re-read the second sentence of what was actually typed. Maybe a few times. Your characterization is flagrantly opposite of what this person shared.