Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotso | Hacker News Reader

> Can anyone point me to a link where anyone (other than a feminist) has said this?

Seems odd to tie this to being a feminist. I would hope all commentators on HN are feminists. What is your definition of a feminist?

> There has never been a myth that women can't code.

I don't think anyone says women "can't" code. I would say in most universities in the US, you could reasonably argue there seems to be more barriers to women majoring in CS than men for many reasons.

edit: For the people downvoting me, it would be great to explain why the downvotes as opposed to participating in a discussion.

View on HN

You're most likely being downvoted because you misunderstood the parent post.

Saying "you can code even if you're a woman" is incredibly patronizing. It was never in question.

If I started saying, "Well, I think everyone can code, even red-haired people", it'd be negatively worded against red-haired people.

Hey, have you ever heard a politician bring something up under the guise of defending their opponents?

Like maybe say "I do not believe in these allegations about my opponent being born outside the United States. And even if he isn't born in the US, it's not relevant. We should talk about his policies, not about my opponent being born outside the US."

Indeed. That's because "X occurs, even if Y" means something like, "In spite of the expectation that X doesn't occur because of confounding factor Y, X occurs anyway".

So, your argument is "no one has ever said men are better at writing programs than women"?

Not only am I not arguing (and thus don't have an argument), but even if I were, that would certainly not be my argument.

I was explaining why the comment was getting downvoted.

It is, however, interesting to see how you yourself are adopting a very similar tactic to the one I talk about in the post you replied to. Simply fascinating.

OK, I'll try to be more explicit.

> Saying "you can code even if you're a woman" is incredibly patronizing. It was never in question.

This isn't true. Tons of people question this!

Are those people's opinions respectable?

I know people who question the earth being round. Who question the moon landing. Does that mean the matter itself is "in question"?

I guess I phrased it pretty vaguely huh? Fair enough.

Just out of curiosity.. what barriers?

Here's one for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat

I'm sure if you Google, you can find much better explanations than I am able to provide.

"Failures to replicate and publication bias" as a subheading on that page.

> I would hope all commentators on HN are feminists.

I would hope so too, but the empirical evidence is against us.

A lot of people, especially here, believe that matters of equality are solved by treating peers as equals regardless of differences, rather than praise the differences, put them on a pedestal and give the people handicaps for being different.

I'd also love to see all that "empirical evidence". HN is one of the most respectful communities in tech I've frequented. Sexist remarks and the like tend to be downvoted and flagged.

As a minority, I think it is incredibly valuable to see people like me succeeding.

>HN is one of the most respectful communities in tech I've frequented.

I don't think I've ever seen a thoughtful discussion here when the topic relates to gender or race.

> I think it is incredibly valuable to see people like me succeeding

I feel the same way. In fact, most people here feel the same way, regardless of whether they are part of a minority or not. We all love to see people like ourselves succeed. It's incredibly empowering to feel that "this can be you". It doesn't just apply to careers, but in any situation where we feel we are faced with a challenge (this is why, for example, weight loss communities like /r/loseit are so successful).

Displays of success don't have to be contextualized as "they are successful because they are a minority", or "it's a big deal because they are a minority". Doing this cheapens the accomplishment and (I think) that's what rustynails was getting at.

I think people are operating under different definitions of feminism. It's sort of an "if-by-whiskey"[1] thing. If by feminism you mean not discriminating against (or in any way thinking less of) women, then practically everyone on HN is a feminist. And many –including myself– would argue that if that's what you mean by feminism, then the term doesn't need to exist. We don't have a term for a non-racist. Why should we need a term for a non-sexist?

On the other hand, if by feminism you mean rather strident and angry views being put forth by some self-proclaimed feminists... well then I would say most of HN commenters aren't feminists. And I would also say I'm glad for that.

Really though, this whole topic is radioactive. It's best to stay quiet or use a pseudonym when discussing it. Otherwise, you're bound to make enemies.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

>If by feminism you mean not discriminating against (or in any way thinking less of) women, then practically everyone on HN is a feminist. And many –including myself– would argue that if that's what you mean by feminism, then the term doesn't need to exist. We don't have a term for a non-racist. Why should we need a term for a non-sexist?

Hmm, along those lines, why would we ever need/have needed terms like "civil rights" or "abolitionist"? I mean, why should we need a term to designate being against racism, or against slavery?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com