Comment by Lewisham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lewisham | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Obviously anyone making any comment about this article is wandering into a minefield of appearing sexist. While I agree with the sentiment (attracting girls into CS is OK, putting some money at the end of a stick is OK, and CS will benefit from them being there), one of the points did bother me.

The first time I spoke at a conference, John Allsopp contacted me to ask if I would do it. I never would have submitted a proposal. You might say that I should have, but I would counter that I shouldn’t need to act like a dude to get respect.

To which I shall counter, but you should have. This is an attitude of entitlement. "I am not the way you work, but I am a girl, thus everything is much harder for me, so I am entitled to have people bend over backwards telling me how wonderful I am and flattering me by asking me to speak at a conference."

She makes the assumption that all men are speaking at conferences too; but they're not. Speaking at a conference is an honor. We've seen lots of stuff on HN about how people make their own luck. If people are hungry, they will make things happen. She wasn't hungry. She didn't want to speak. That's not a girl thing, that's just her. There are plenty of men in that boat too.

These articles, as alanh described, are almost always strewn with male sexism too. I'm sad to see that this one is the same way.

The wider question is not one of male/female, but of equality in general. Locker-room antics (of which I am guilty), work/life balance, teaching of the sciences and engineering in schools... these are all things that need to be reviewed about equality, not an us vs them, male vs female, attitude.

"To which I shall counter, but you should have. This is an attitude of entitlement."

Clay Shirky has written about this at length [1]; the basic point being that women are socialized their whole lives to not be entitled or aggressive but to stay quiet and in the background, while men are constantly socialized to take what they want, step forward, go for it, "be a man" etc. Obviously there is much variation, and yes, geeks tend toward the not-so-aggro end of the table, but I think it's still an important point.

I'd also suggest that, sure, there are lots of men not speaking at conferences, but I suspect proportionally there are even more women for whom that is true.

[1] http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a-rant-about-women/

(edit: added link)

> the basic point being that women are socialized their whole lives to not be entitled or aggressive but to stay quiet and in the background, while men are constantly socialized to take what they want, step forward, go for it, "be a man" etc.

I think this is related to what Nicole Sullivan is getting at when she talks about women needing female role models, e.g.: "The problem compounds itself as women see no role-models for how to be a woman in this field."

I suspect role-models are more important to women than they are to men. For example, I'm a man, and when I started designing a programming language I didn't know anyone else who had; when I co-founded a political party I didn't know anyone else who had done that either. The whole concept that do do something you need to know someone else who has done it seems alien to me.

The passivity thing really puzzles me. Why would I want something and not go for it?

Oh boy...

Depending on how much you want something, and your personality, the following and more may readily discourage you:

* Fear of rejection

* Fear of seeming out of place

* Fear of general embarassment

* Fear of disappointment or being underwhelmed upon conquering fear of embarassment and/or ignoring embarassment produced

* Fear that "it won't be worth it"

/a male

I think this might be an argument for grants for women :)

Also, not everyone is a go-getter extrovert.

I read his rant, and I love him, but that was a terribly written, poorly thought out and even more poorly researched "rant." That is not writing about it at length, which implies serious and long-term study... just writing lengthy, which implies volume.

Many women - and lots of men, too - do this thing where they attempt to control the world by being gentle, sweet and pathetic (in the sense of evoking emotions). By trying to be appealing so things come to them.

It's a nicer way of control, but it is still about control. It's emotionally dishonest.

And when it doesn't work, they go boo-hoo. So do the men who do the same thing.

Whenever you see a "nice guy" who refuses to ask the object of his affections out, and instead plays friend and hopes she'll wake up one day, that's this behavior at work.

I don't think women are socialized to be this way any more than men are -- but men are better at ignoring socialization and doing extreme things (both good and bad) in the pursuit of their goals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com