If she had a case for more pervasive sexism at GitHub, I'd like her to lay it out in the open so we can address it.
She did. Yet it seems like every effort is made not to address it, including flagging of two articles on HN today, both incidentally or not by women, so that they wouldn't make it to the front page (one did, briefly)[1], [2].
But the vast majority of responses I saw were sympathetic to Horvath's position, if not her sexism angle.
That's right. Many of the comments of HN were disappointingly sexist. Just to give you an example of how cleverly sexism can be masked (even, and especially, if it's unintentional masking of unintentional sexism), the very same people who were quick to assign blame in the NSA/Snowden story, or the Aaron Swartz story, all of a sudden called for restraint until further "data" is obtained in this case so they could form an "informed" opinion, while views supporting and expounding on the sexism claims were dismissed as "emotional". Actually this masking of sexism is so banal, that it is, in fact, anything but clever.
I'm sympathetic to the problems women face in this industry, but the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed. Maybe people were able to show restraint in this case because they felt less close to the issue due to sexist tendencies, but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board.
Also, neither of those articles are by Horvath and they barely even go into her accusation of sexism, so I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation. Are you sure you linked the right ones?
the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed
Well, that it did so using the most banal chauvinistic terms makes it kind of shameful.
but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board.
Yes, but the fact that restraint is shown only when women and sexism are involved is in itself sexist (actually, this is not quite true; I seem to recall similar calls to restraint of judgement back when Uber's employees picketed the company).
I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation
They're not. Her accusations of systemic sexism are clearly laid out at the top of the original TechCrunch story, but have been largely ignored in the discussion. The flagging of those two stories is just another example of the commendable (yet strangely exceptional) restraint HN is showing today :)
... aaaand this very article just mysteriously dropped off the front page. Another fine example of admirable (albeit selective) restraint.
I just reread the article to be sure I hadn't glossed over it, and I personally do not see any clear account of sexism. She says it was there, and I believe her (because sexism at a tech startup is about as surprising as ants at a picnic), but she doesn't clearly describe it at all. None of the specific grievances she cites have any clear connection to her gender.
PS: Sorry people are hating so much on your reply. I do appreciate your overall point.
This isn't rape, you know. Sexism isn't an event. It's an atmosphere. She describes the atmosphere. Short of providing hours of videos or recordings, I'm not sure how much more clear she could have put it. Of course, if she had, those would have been generally dismissed as aberrations, or, more likely, as her "misunderstanding" the situation, or "natural in a competitive environment".
But that's not surprising either, because the HN community is sexist, and those are textbook responses to allegations of sexism.
If she does not give examples of the sexist atmosphere, we can't accurately form opinions about GitHub and GitHub can't address her concerns.
If I'm missing an actual example of sexism from her post, other than the hulahooping situation which I've already noted and addressed, please enlighten me.
"aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion"
"character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues"
"she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work"
These are actual examples of sexism. I don't know what exactly you were expecting. Pictures of men dropping their pants? Because that's not sexism; that's sexual harassment. Sexism is an atmosphere and a culture which she says she experienced. Please read up on what sexism is before placing yourself in the role of the lawyer for the defense. Just ask yourself this: were you displaying the same sort of skepticism in the Aaron Swartz case, or were you inclined to believe his accounts or the accounts of those close to him? If the answer is that you weren't skeptical back then, then you're displaying sexist behavior right now even if you don't feel like you are or it's not your intention.
When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it, precisely because you can't see it. It's just like someone telling you you've got something stuck in your teeth. When someone tells you you've got something stuck in your teeth, you don't assume they're lying, but you go look in the mirror; if you don't, you run the risk of looking stupid. Sexism is exactly the same: if someone tells you you're sexist, you go look in the mirror long and hard. If you deny it, you just look stupid, because how do you deny something that you can't see?
When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it
And isn't that convenient?
This is the reason why people are scared to death of a mere accusation of sexism or racism.
Of course, we can joke about it, and quote Avenue Q ("everyone's a little bit racist..."), but it's just about as easy to defend against as being accused of being a Communist in 1950s Hollywood, or being accused of being a witch in 1620s New England. Once the taint is attached to a person, especially in a high profile or scandalous case, it hangs around for a while.
In reality, all that we can determine when A accuses B of sexism, is that A experiences something B is doing as sexist (or thinks they do). But A could be mistaken, A could have an axe to grind with B, or it could simply be a difference of opinion about what is sexist and what is not. To say otherwise is just jumping to conclusions.
In reality, all that we can determine when A accuses B of sexism, is that A experiences something B is doing as sexist (or thinks they do).
Yes. That's usually what sexism is. What A experiences.
But A could be mistaken
In theory - yes. In practice, chances of that are low, especially in tech. You see, tech is such a sexist environment, that if anyone experiences sexism in your company, it's probably there. Even if no one experiences it it's probably there. Unlike Communism in the 50s, though, it's no biggie. You listen, try to understand, identify and empathize and fix whatever needs fixing. That's not "jumping to conclusions", but realizing that this is a very serious problem in tech right now, and all you need to do is try and fix it. No one is getting blacklisted or going to jail.
And it's not a "taint", unless the allegations are of something far more serious than simple sexism (like sexual harassment).
What I don't understand is why would anyone, when faced with the accusation that some of their employees feel unsafe or bullied, would try to fight this. If someone tells you the atmosphere in your company makes them uncomfortable, you better listen. You shouldn't take offense by someone calling you sexist because chances are that you are. Why? Because we are flooded with sexist ideas starting in kindergarten and everywhere else since. Think of it is a vestigial social appendage. Everybody has it. It's ingrained in us. If someone points that out to you, you should be thankful, because you're seeing something that you're not accustomed to seeing. It can be truly eye opening and enlightening, and unlike some interesting fact about the big bang, this knowledge can make living in our society a lot better for everyone.
I think part of the challenge is that people are conditioned by media to view "sexism" or "racism" only in the grossest extremes, as things that are only done by truly evil people. For example: "sexism" as the boss who gropes his female subordinates and proposes sexual services in exchange for special treatment or promotions; "racism" as the cross-burning Klansmen or curb-stomping skinheads.
As such, admitting to "a little" sexism or "a little" racism is viewed by many as a one way slippery slope of perception where their friends and colleagues will soon be viewing them as those aforementioned examples of undiluted evil.
Additionally, from a tactical / practical point of view, it may be unwise to admit anything in front of HR, which generally exists primarily to protect the company's ass from liability, and only incidentally to protect the employees. No one wants to be written up or sent to sensitivity training.
I am attempting to look in the mirror, and it looks like GitHub is as well. But saying ~"I felt like I was treated differently", and ~"There was overly aggressive communication on pull requests" is akin to telling someone "You had something in your teeth some time in the past year".
Regarding the claim that article [1] was flagged off the front page: It currently has 78 upvotes and 101 comments. As I have explained before‡, articles that have more comments than upvotes and more than 40 comments are automatically penalized by the controversy filter. Thus, it is likely that the article dropped off the front page due to the ranking algorithm, not due to a deliberate effort to suppress the article.
I'm aware of the algorithm. But that story, like the other one, did drop off the front page due to deliberate flagging. Most of the comments came later because the item was shared outside HN (I know because I was closely following it). One of the flaggers was brave and honest enough to own up to it, tried to explain himself, and then was open minded enough or civil enough to be convinced.
It reached around #8 on the front page with about 60 votes and no more than 30 comments, and then, poof, was gone in a few seconds.
Perhaps rather than whining about how 'banal' everyone here was, you could just educate us as to what the specific sexism was? All of the stories that were popular here were primarily about a crazy wife harassing an employee and a jealous employee behaving chilishly.
Comments
She did. Yet it seems like every effort is made not to address it, including flagging of two articles on HN today, both incidentally or not by women, so that they wouldn't make it to the front page (one did, briefly)[1], [2].
That's right. Many of the comments of HN were disappointingly sexist. Just to give you an example of how cleverly sexism can be masked (even, and especially, if it's unintentional masking of unintentional sexism), the very same people who were quick to assign blame in the NSA/Snowden story, or the Aaron Swartz story, all of a sudden called for restraint until further "data" is obtained in this case so they could form an "informed" opinion, while views supporting and expounding on the sexism claims were dismissed as "emotional". Actually this masking of sexism is so banal, that it is, in fact, anything but clever.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7416189
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7418029
I'm sympathetic to the problems women face in this industry, but the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that should be encouraged, not shamed. Maybe people were able to show restraint in this case because they felt less close to the issue due to sexist tendencies, but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be the ideal across the board.
Also, neither of those articles are by Horvath and they barely even go into her accusation of sexism, so I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on her accusation. Are you sure you linked the right ones?
Well, that it did so using the most banal chauvinistic terms makes it kind of shameful.
Yes, but the fact that restraint is shown only when women and sexism are involved is in itself sexist (actually, this is not quite true; I seem to recall similar calls to restraint of judgement back when Uber's employees picketed the company).
They're not. Her accusations of systemic sexism are clearly laid out at the top of the original TechCrunch story, but have been largely ignored in the discussion. The flagging of those two stories is just another example of the commendable (yet strangely exceptional) restraint HN is showing today :)
... aaaand this very article just mysteriously dropped off the front page. Another fine example of admirable (albeit selective) restraint.
I just reread the article to be sure I hadn't glossed over it, and I personally do not see any clear account of sexism. She says it was there, and I believe her (because sexism at a tech startup is about as surprising as ants at a picnic), but she doesn't clearly describe it at all. None of the specific grievances she cites have any clear connection to her gender.
PS: Sorry people are hating so much on your reply. I do appreciate your overall point.
This isn't rape, you know. Sexism isn't an event. It's an atmosphere. She describes the atmosphere. Short of providing hours of videos or recordings, I'm not sure how much more clear she could have put it. Of course, if she had, those would have been generally dismissed as aberrations, or, more likely, as her "misunderstanding" the situation, or "natural in a competitive environment".
But that's not surprising either, because the HN community is sexist, and those are textbook responses to allegations of sexism.
If she does not give examples of the sexist atmosphere, we can't accurately form opinions about GitHub and GitHub can't address her concerns.
If I'm missing an actual example of sexism from her post, other than the hulahooping situation which I've already noted and addressed, please enlighten me.
"aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion"
"character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues"
"she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work"
These are actual examples of sexism. I don't know what exactly you were expecting. Pictures of men dropping their pants? Because that's not sexism; that's sexual harassment. Sexism is an atmosphere and a culture which she says she experienced. Please read up on what sexism is before placing yourself in the role of the lawyer for the defense. Just ask yourself this: were you displaying the same sort of skepticism in the Aaron Swartz case, or were you inclined to believe his accounts or the accounts of those close to him? If the answer is that you weren't skeptical back then, then you're displaying sexist behavior right now even if you don't feel like you are or it's not your intention.
When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it, precisely because you can't see it. It's just like someone telling you you've got something stuck in your teeth. When someone tells you you've got something stuck in your teeth, you don't assume they're lying, but you go look in the mirror; if you don't, you run the risk of looking stupid. Sexism is exactly the same: if someone tells you you're sexist, you go look in the mirror long and hard. If you deny it, you just look stupid, because how do you deny something that you can't see?
When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you don't see it
And isn't that convenient?
This is the reason why people are scared to death of a mere accusation of sexism or racism.
Of course, we can joke about it, and quote Avenue Q ("everyone's a little bit racist..."), but it's just about as easy to defend against as being accused of being a Communist in 1950s Hollywood, or being accused of being a witch in 1620s New England. Once the taint is attached to a person, especially in a high profile or scandalous case, it hangs around for a while.
In reality, all that we can determine when A accuses B of sexism, is that A experiences something B is doing as sexist (or thinks they do). But A could be mistaken, A could have an axe to grind with B, or it could simply be a difference of opinion about what is sexist and what is not. To say otherwise is just jumping to conclusions.
Sexism is anything but convenient to its victims.
Yes. That's usually what sexism is. What A experiences.
In theory - yes. In practice, chances of that are low, especially in tech. You see, tech is such a sexist environment, that if anyone experiences sexism in your company, it's probably there. Even if no one experiences it it's probably there. Unlike Communism in the 50s, though, it's no biggie. You listen, try to understand, identify and empathize and fix whatever needs fixing. That's not "jumping to conclusions", but realizing that this is a very serious problem in tech right now, and all you need to do is try and fix it. No one is getting blacklisted or going to jail.
And it's not a "taint", unless the allegations are of something far more serious than simple sexism (like sexual harassment).
What I don't understand is why would anyone, when faced with the accusation that some of their employees feel unsafe or bullied, would try to fight this. If someone tells you the atmosphere in your company makes them uncomfortable, you better listen. You shouldn't take offense by someone calling you sexist because chances are that you are. Why? Because we are flooded with sexist ideas starting in kindergarten and everywhere else since. Think of it is a vestigial social appendage. Everybody has it. It's ingrained in us. If someone points that out to you, you should be thankful, because you're seeing something that you're not accustomed to seeing. It can be truly eye opening and enlightening, and unlike some interesting fact about the big bang, this knowledge can make living in our society a lot better for everyone.
I think part of the challenge is that people are conditioned by media to view "sexism" or "racism" only in the grossest extremes, as things that are only done by truly evil people. For example: "sexism" as the boss who gropes his female subordinates and proposes sexual services in exchange for special treatment or promotions; "racism" as the cross-burning Klansmen or curb-stomping skinheads.
As such, admitting to "a little" sexism or "a little" racism is viewed by many as a one way slippery slope of perception where their friends and colleagues will soon be viewing them as those aforementioned examples of undiluted evil.
Additionally, from a tactical / practical point of view, it may be unwise to admit anything in front of HR, which generally exists primarily to protect the company's ass from liability, and only incidentally to protect the employees. No one wants to be written up or sent to sensitivity training.
...
I am attempting to look in the mirror, and it looks like GitHub is as well. But saying ~"I felt like I was treated differently", and ~"There was overly aggressive communication on pull requests" is akin to telling someone "You had something in your teeth some time in the past year".
Regarding the claim that article [1] was flagged off the front page: It currently has 78 upvotes and 101 comments. As I have explained before‡, articles that have more comments than upvotes and more than 40 comments are automatically penalized by the controversy filter. Thus, it is likely that the article dropped off the front page due to the ranking algorithm, not due to a deliberate effort to suppress the article.
‡ http://www.righto.com/2013/11/how-hacker-news-ranking-really...
I'm aware of the algorithm. But that story, like the other one, did drop off the front page due to deliberate flagging. Most of the comments came later because the item was shared outside HN (I know because I was closely following it). One of the flaggers was brave and honest enough to own up to it, tried to explain himself, and then was open minded enough or civil enough to be convinced.
It reached around #8 on the front page with about 60 votes and no more than 30 comments, and then, poof, was gone in a few seconds.
Perhaps rather than whining about how 'banal' everyone here was, you could just educate us as to what the specific sexism was? All of the stories that were popular here were primarily about a crazy wife harassing an employee and a jealous employee behaving chilishly.