Hacker News Reader

> What were your honest, visceral, reactions to each of these statements?

Let me add some:

Attractive white woman says that low income white man stole something from her. What will happen?

Black woman and white woman each comment that babies of their own race are the prettiest babies. What will happen?

Power dynamics are fluid and contextual.

> Helping groups isn't the same as discrimination.

It is. The only cases where it makes a difference are inherently zero sum or net negative, because if they weren't then the racial preference wouldn't have been necessary to reach the same outcome.

> Watch that video and tell me, with a straight face, that 90% of US prison populations are black men because they commit more crimes, and not because they simply are arrested more often.

90% of US prison populations are men. Less than half of those men are black men. Black men are, however, highly overrepresented in part for the reasons you suggest.

> Girls do as well as boys in engineering and programming, and yet many cultural pressures push them away -- not least of which are the attitudes of boys (and other girls) toward girls who seem to "geeky." Is it bad to have programs that encourage girls to follow STEM career paths?

It depends on the nature of the program. Does the program mitigate the cultural pressures? Good. Does the program make girls "special" and give them things not available to the boys? Not good.

> It was far easier for me to get where I am because I'm privileged, and I'm not going to poke fun at people who are trying to help those who aren't.

Which is why it's a lot easier to tell how much help someone needs based on where they are right now rather than the color of their skin or whether or not they have a penis.

> Power dynamics are fluid and contextual.

True, but a distraction. When you can have a black man graduate from a top university, well dressed, and yet pulled over, torn from a car, treated poorly and handcuffed -- all for being black and owning a car that made the cops think he might be a drug dealer, that seems even worse than privilege from money.

Fighting privilege as a result of wealth is another noble cause; the entire 99% movement was about that, as is Bernie Sanders' popularity. But its existence doesn't mean that other problems aren't worse.

I honestly don't like the statements on either side about the babies, so I'll just leave that one.

> > Helping groups isn't the same as discrimination. > It is. The only cases where it makes a difference are inherently zero sum or net negative, because if they weren't then the racial preference wouldn't have been necessary to reach the same outcome.

No, I'm not talking quotas, I'm talking extra education and being open to working with someone who doesn't look like you. There are cognitive biases that cause people to naturally want to work with people who look like themselves; making an extra effort to overcome that bias and honestly compare candidates is not, by any stretch, a bad thing.

It's only "net negative" if you think the whites who had all of the privilege somehow "deserved" the jobs that the potentially better minority or disadvantaged candidates could get with additional help and with mitigation of bias in hiring. I know that there are groups who feel that way (otherwise Trump wouldn't be where he is), but that kind of us-vs-them mentality is harmful.

You're defending positions nobody is attacking.

Here's the part from the original post where you were wrong:

> The dominant group doesn't need help.

And the reason is that you assume the dominant group is homogeneous or even discretely identifiable. "Black men need more help than white men" is a statement which is true in the aggregate but tells you nothing about whether a specific black man needs more help than a specific white man, and using the color of a man's skin to make the assumption that he is like the stereotype of his race is black letter racism.

We need to be teaching people that that is not OK, not that it is OK under various subjective circumstances that racists can then use to rationalize their racism.

So this:

> When you can have a black man graduate from a top university, well dressed, and yet pulled over, torn from a car, treated poorly and handcuffed -- all for being black and owning a car that made the cops think he might be a drug dealer, that seems even worse than privilege from money.

Even assuming that's true (but cf. people who die of starvation or exposure or suffer preventable diseases for lack of money), the fix for that is to fix it.

This kind of gets at the heart of what is wrong with the concept of privilege. If you frame it as privilege then the evildoers are the people who have this "privilege" of not being unjustly harassed by the cops. But the actual evildoers are the cops who unjustly harass black people. And we need to attack a problem where it is, not where it isn't.

> It's only "net negative" if you think the whites who had all of the privilege somehow "deserved" the jobs that the potentially better minority or disadvantaged candidates could get with additional help and with mitigation of bias in hiring.

"The whites who had all of the privilege" are not in the same decision space. The rich man's son always gets the job because his father owns the company.

The problem with making decisions at the margin by favoring a nominally less privileged group is that it's too late by then. If the specific person applying for the same job really had significantly more privilege, he wouldn't be applying for the same job. He would be an engineer instead of a mechanic or be applying for a senior position instead of a junior one. To be in the same decision space already implies an equivalent level of privilege. Accounting for it again is double counting.

> that kind of us-vs-them mentality is harmful.

Categorizing people into groups that have more variation within them than between them and then using the groups to to make preference choices is the us-vs-them mentality.

> * White Female Actor: People walk by, mostly ignoring her; one guy offers to help her steal the bike. That last one had me dying of laughter. If that video doesn't convey a direct, obvious example of white privilege, then I'm perfectly confident in saying you're the one who's got the closed mind -- or a political agenda to promote. That video is one indisputable example of white privilege.

Actually, it's a good example of female privilege. As proven by the first experiment, a white male got very different treatment, so no skin color involved here. Interesting that there is no example of a black female.

> That last one had me dying of laughter. If that video doesn't convey a direct, obvious example of white privilege

So, when white guy is stealing a bike, people confront him (not all of them) and some consider calling the police. When white female is stealing a bike, a guy offers to help her. This is an example of a white privilege, but not female privilege. Am I missing something in this picture, or discussing "female privilege" is one of those topics beyond the proverbial line in the sand?

I mean, I don't claim there is or is not white or female privilege. I just say if we look at the structure of your example and you conclude it proves there is a white privilege, you also must conclude there is a female privilege, for the same reason. Why didn't you?

> 90% of US prison populations are black men because they commit more crimes, and not because they simply are arrested more often

It's a false dichotomy. It is actually both. And black men is not nearly 90% of US prison population - it's actually 37% [1] for males and 22% for females. You may want to get familiar with actual facts before you argue.

> I would say that any government that is enforcing a particular behavior (that doesn't harm others!) has to provide the burden of proof that their actions are just

That is a very noble statement. Unfortunately, very frequently this statement is voiced by what I call one-point libertarians - people that are completely OK with widest government intrusion as long as it matches their opinions, but in one point where government policy does not match it they demand extraordinary amount of proof. This looks like opportunism rather than principle.

> there are real people out there, suffering broad cultural prejudice, and people like you are trying to ridicule them by using terms like SJW

Usually people called SJW and people actually suffering prejudice are very different people. People that are most frequently being called SJW are very frequently are very white, very privileged, study in very expensive and very selective colleges, live in countries and conditions that 99% of the planet population would consider very luxurious, etc. Not always, of course - but frequently. They just think that because they talk about privilege that somehow allows them to take "holier than thou" pose.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

>Am I missing something in this picture, or discussing "female privilege" is one of those topics beyond the proverbial line in the sand?

Addressed that here. [1] Not sure why this is even a question, honestly. White privilege is a thing. There are circumstances where women have the advantage as well, but there are others where they clearly don't.

>It's a false dichotomy. It is actually both. And black men is not nearly 90% of US prison population - it's actually 37% [1] for males and 22% for females.

Sorry, you're correct, I mis-remembered the numbers. Only 32% are white males compared to 77% of the US population, though. Blacks and Hispanics are totally over-represented.

>Usually people called SJW and people actually suffering prejudice are very different people.

Yeah, duh. We are the only ones in the position to make change happen, because we're the ones with the awesome jobs who can be sure that the culture is open enough that people who don't traditionally work in tech (or in games in particular) can feel welcome to participate.

Do you think minorities standing around complaining about how hard they have it will work? Um, no, it hasn't. It takes people from the majority to speak up for the minority in order for change to happen.

>They just think that because they talk about privilege that somehow allows them to take "holier than thou" pose.

Projection much? [2] Striking an "attitude" or feeling better than someone is not even on the top ten of the list of motivations of anyone I know (myself included) who fights for people to be treated with respect. That is a common attitude expressed by groups throwing around "SJW" as an insult, however.

I went to a public university (first a two year, then four year), but yes, I'm white and live in the US. But the motivation I have to argue with people about this is 100% due to the fact that if all white privileged people ignore the problem, then it won't go away.

It's our ball game, and it's our responsibility make sure that others are invited, and that they have all the opportunities they need to compete. Otherwise we're being selfish jerks.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11798905

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

> Addressed that here.

Basically you said "I didn't mention female privilege because I didn't claim white privilege is the only one". No, you didn't, but you also neglected to discuss most privileged category in your own example, which makes one to question your logic in this example.

You also say "women are less privileged in other domains" - true, one can find such domains. But we didn't look into other domains. We looked in specific example you provided, and you specifically discussed privilege, and yet by your own logic you failed to notice the most privileged group. Looks like you didn't really try to find one but tried to arrive at a predefined conclusion, did you?

> Yeah, duh

No, not duh. You can't first claim the mantle of the oppressed and when it is shown to you it is not yours say "duh". People are ridiculing SJWs in part because they use the pretense of being oppressed and sometimes case of real oppression (not done to them) to support their ridiculous and often harmful demands and actions.

> Projection much?

I would recommend looking up what "projection" means. There are groups on the right which do strike "holier than thou" attitude, but they usually have no idea what SJW means and are very far from the context of it. Those that you would see ridiculing the SJWs usually do not have anything like that attitude, they are more of the "leave me alone" kind.

> Striking an "attitude" or feeling better than someone is not even on the top ten of the list of motivations of anyone I know (myself included) who fights for people to be treated with respect.

Their behavior suggests otherwise, unfortunately. And I can't see how some things that are being done - like complete closure of campus thought to any dissent and independent thought, or hate campaigns like one happened to Tim Hunt - can be reasonably described as "fight for people to be treated with respect". If anything, the typical mode of behavior starts with refusing to even admit the possibility of respectful disagreement, and we can see example in this very topic of people being actually proud of it. That's what the W in the name goes for - W means war, and there's no place for respect in war. At least not the contemporary war, older wars were different a bit in that regard.

> It's our ball game, and it's our responsibility make sure that others are invited

It is. But organizing hate campaigns, and fake hate crimes, and imaginary insults, and more and more strict speech codes, and crying for authority to exclude everyone that tries to introduce at least the hint of an independent thought, and taking it all to a ridiculous levels - is not the way to do it. And there's way too much of it going on right now.

The video you gave clearly showed how white men and white women get treated with privilege, yet your conclusion is that its only men who are privileged? How does that work?

Here is a simple study done in Sweden that should go well with your video. The researchers made a fake profile of a criminal and gave it to psychiatrists currently employed by the justice system. Half of the recipients had the profile where the name of the subject had a typical male name, and the other half got the same profile but with a typical female name for the subject.

The female profile were 450% more likely to be deemed criminally insane and thus not responsible for the actions described in the fake profile. Culturally we view women as not able to commit a crime, but if proven, the only possible explanation that fit current culture is that they must be insane.

> * White man says that black woman stole something from him. What will happen?

Women don't steal, unless mentally insane. Police will generally ignore it as it doesn't fit current cultural views.

* White woman says that black man stole something from her. What will happen?

Black man fits the current cultural views of a criminal. Police will go after him.

* Black man says that white woman stole something from him. What will happen?

Women don't steal, unless mentally insane. Police will generally ignore it as it doesn't fit current cultural views.

* Black woman says that white man stole something from her. What will happen?

White men is less suspicious than black men, but criminal white males is still within cultural norms. Police will look into it if there is additional signs for it.

Then you bring in example of women being pushed out of industries with high (75+)% ratio of men. Would like you hear how welcome men are in industries high (75+)% ratio of women? Ever been physically attacked by a customer who then goes to accuses you for being mentally sick because the profession you took (a story I read by a male midwife, 99% female to male ratio).

There was a study by someone I no longer recall that showed how industries that has a single dominating gender, typically tend to create a work culture that infuses gender identity of the dominating group. Those of the minority gender then have to choose between either assimilate into that culture or leave. How much of "cultural pressures" could be explained by just that theory, and which gender is then privileged?

>The video you gave clearly showed how white men and white women get treated with privilege, yet your conclusion is that its only men who are privileged? How does that work?

Being white is clearly privileged in both cases. I never "concluded" that "only" white men are privileged. My other example was meant to specifically trigger the strongest reaction when a black man was paired with the white woman.

The way women are disadvantaged falls in other domains -- like the ability to get jobs in (at least some, probably most) STEM fields. It's a more nuanced distinction.

> Ever been physically attacked by a customer who then goes to accuses you for being mentally sick because the profession you took (a story I read by a male midwife, 99% female to male ratio).

Other stereotypes and arbitrary restrictions placed on gender are bad too. Male nurses are making inroads into the occupation, though they're still a minority. [1] Oddly enough, the men on average made more money per hour than the women.

But the point is that something like 95% of occupations are either skewed toward men or balanced, and you have to go looking hard for any skewed toward women. And if you're looking for well paying jobs, the difference is even more stark. Pointing out the few examples where women have the advantage is roughly equivalent to the "separate but equal" arguments in support of black and white segregation.

>There was a study by someone I no longer recall that showed how industries that has a single dominating gender, typically tend to create a work culture that infuses gender identity of the dominating group. Those of the minority gender then have to choose between either assimilate into that culture or leave. How much of "cultural pressures" could be explained by just that theory, and which gender is then privileged?

Doesn't matter. It could all be explained by that theory, and it would still be important to break open the industries (on both sides -- male nursing and women in STEM) by changing the culture.

Yes it can be uncomfortable. But the fact that a guy can graduate as a software engineer can look at a $100k+ offer out of college, and he can know that the career will be welcoming and comfortable, where a woman graduating with the same degree will face "bro" culture in a lot of companies, and be forced to "assimilate" into that culture or be ostracized? That's simply not OK.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-male-us-nurses-triple-...

> "But the point is that something like 95% of occupations are either skewed toward men or balanced, and you have to go looking hard for any skewed toward women"

I will now recommend that you look at some actually numbers. To take Sweden as an example, 78% of women and 82% of men are employed. 70% of all professions are skewed towards being male or female dominated.

Basic number awareness, do your 95% number above sound reasonable? Its not, and I do not have a hard time naming professions thats female dominate. I can just go down the list if you like, as the state produce statistics each year.

Dentist. Hair stylist. Psychiatrists. Veterinarian. Bank teller.

Above are some of the 90+% list. Want me to continue?

Nurse. Preschool personal. Teachers. Hotel and office cleaner. Animal husbandry personal. Administrative assistant. Chefs.

Want me to name a few typical male dominated professions?

Mechanic. Truck driver. Warehouse employee. Carpenter. Operator of heavy machinery.

Here, link! http://www.scb.se/Statistik/_Publikationer/LE0201_2013B14_BR...

Go to page 66. There is the 30 largest professions (as per number of employed persons). The left side is number of women and right side is number of men. Notice how the two side is almost identical in number of professions that are skewed towards a single gender?

Its not just nursing. Its not just about preschool. The IT profession is around 70% ratio of men. Veterinarian in contrast is often each year the the most sought after program in universities (counted as number of student applicants, divided by number of available seats), and it got somewhere around 90% ration of women vs men.

Your link is in Swedish? I assume that they're not talking about US statistics in it. Different cultures are going to have different cultural barriers to jobs; there will be some overlap, but it's not going to be the same. In India, for instance, there are almost equal numbers of women and men in IT-related fields. There are other issues there, but that's one of the starkest examples I know of.

There's a great US document here [1] that details a lot of the problem, at least here in the US. Nearly half of STEM occupations are computer related, and that's where women have some of the hardest time getting jobs (only 26.6% female). Another 32 percent are engineering occupations, where the numbers are even worse (only 13.2% female).

Many of the jobs you listed aren't dominated by one gender; in your list, except for "nurse", most either are low paying or don't post a significant barrier to entry to men.

More women want to be veterinarians? Good for them! I can't imagine being a male vet would encounter any cultural biases that would interfere with his ability to be comfortable in the job, so it's not equivalent. The word "veterinarian" or "vet" doesn't have a gender connotation for me (unlike "nurse", for instance), and while there may be more women at vet conferences than men, I don't see how that's a problem for them? Unless they're concerned about their perceived masculinity or something idiotic like that.

I personally had no inclination at all to go into a medical or legal career; if I'd been born female, would it be OK for me to have been coerced into taking a lower-paying job, menial or otherwise, because of the harassment and bias present in STEM jobs?

Computer-related jobs aren't the only option, but those are typically the options that are most accessible, in that they don't require a multi-year degree and professional certification. And yet computer related jobs are increasingly dominated by men for no valid reason; many of the jobs you enumerated are dominated by women because those are they jobs they can get.

And if a woman does want to drive a truck or operate heavy machinery, that should be OK too. If that means that the guys need to not post centerfolds all over the office, or make derogatory jokes about women, so be it. Any hiring restrictions should be based purely on actual physical needs ("must be able to lift 70lbs." for instance).

If you replace "Political Correctness" with "Treating Others With Respect," you get a better concept of what it is that matters about being "PC".

Citing examples of professions that have a lot of women means nothing when the discussion is about specific domains (STEM in particular) that frequently exclude, or at least are not welcoming to, women.

[1] http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-24.pdf

In my linked article, let me quote a small section:

"72% of women work in female dominated profession, and 68 of men work in a male dominated profession. Only about 14% women and 13% of men work in a profession that has a ratio of minimum 40% men and women."

If you want to champion for equality, start by removing gender identity from a person profession choice in life. The social status of a woman should not be determined by how feminine the job is, nor should the social status of a man be determined by the wages he earn. When people regard a hair stylist and garbage collector as equally acceptable job for a woman, or man who earn a small modest earning compared to working at a high risk, bad environment, low socially regarded job but with high pay, then we will have started to progress towards equality. Currently, the trend is the direct opposite and more professions is getting gender identity ingrained into the work culture than the year before.

>If you want to champion for equality, start by removing gender identity from a person profession choice in life.

I 100% support this statement, and don't see how it contradicts anything else I said.

>The social status of a woman should not be determined by how feminine the job is

Also support, though with the caveat that (as you mentioned above) the concept of a job being "feminine" ideally wouldn't exist.

>nor should the social status of a man be determined by the wages he earn

Here in the US, at least, the social status of, well, just about everyone, is at least partly determined by the wages they earn.

I agree that this isn't ideal, and in particular no one should be judged for their income level. But in a capitalistic society it's hard to get away from that sentiment entirely. But it's an aspirational goal.

I certainly don't worship income level myself: I just turned down an opportunity to make mid-6-figures in a position where I'd be working with a good friend, and an awesome commute, almost entirely because the work I'd be doing wouldn't be what I'd want to be doing. Many of my friends are in the game industry, and they make much less than they'd be able to make as programmers in other industries, and their "social status" isn't negatively impacted, at least from my POV.

>Currently, the trend is the direct opposite and more professions is getting gender identity ingrained into the work culture than the year before.

I live in an area where hair stylists are frequently men (near Boulder, Colorado, but I've also lived near San Francisco) and engineers are frequently women, without either being criticized for it, so maybe the bubble around me is just more sane than the rest of the country. But TBH that's a large part of why I live here.

I think basic income is a necessary piece in the puzzle to allow people to really do what they want: If you're taking whatever job is available just to be able to live, then you'll take the job you hate the least. We'd still have to shift the culture to remove any stigma from taking a job atypical for a gender, but that's what I've been trying to do in my own personal interactions, including responding to posts here on HN.