Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakobe | Hacker News Reader

I completely understand him. He talked a lot about gender issues, and that's one of a few topics that always leads to raging arguments here.

I've learned to mostly ignore this class of threads. HN is a great place to learn about obscure hacks or interesting technical tidbits, but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues.

View on HN

>but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues.

IMO the fact that many find those types of discussions unsatisfactory makes HN a particularly good place to have them.

But would you be willing to hold your face into the furnace? Because those arguing for the, let's say, "progressive" stance towards (gender-)equality issues recieve a pretty rough deal here.

I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason. And the HN community is not even close to being one of the worst out there in that regard. It just seems that, in 2014, advocating online for measures to reduce the gender-imbalances in some parts of our society will inevitably stirr up pure, raw hate.

I think it is a very small minority of people who are opposed to gender-equality in principle. A lot of us are oblivious to the problems experienced by non-males.

>I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason.

But why? To preserve karma? You can't take it with you when you die.

>advocating online for measures to reduce the gender-imbalances in some parts of our society will inevitably stirr up pure, raw hate.

Some people can't comment on an issue which they feel strongly about without making a personal insult. That's a problem for them, not you.

I reckon I'm probably part of that minority because I argue against some of the shortsighted solutions people propose for bandaging over the problems and symptoms instead of treating the cause. For example, I know I've debated against raganwald at least once with respect to company cultures, some of which may have less then desirable traits with respect to how comfortable each gender may feel when immersed in those cultures (but ultimately is an effect, not cause of inequality).

The problem that some people have with a lot of these discussions isn't with the gender equality, but that many of those arguing for certain measures throw all logic and reason out the window when it comes to what the correct solution is. It's like they start with the "5 whys", stop after the first and propose a solution to that problem without getting to the root.

Gender inequality in STEM companies is result of problems that start far earlier in life and attempting to fix the problems at the company level is simply treating one of the myriad symptoms.

Want to actually fix the problem? Then acknowledge that it's a 20+ year solution you need and not a 1-2 year solution. Provide far more support at the elementary school level, but make sure whatever solution you come up with is gender neutral. If in the first year of offering such program for young children, the ratio of boys to girls still isn't desirable, then focus on improving over several years instead of band-aid solutions like making programs only for girls (which only teaches small boys the lesson that girls need special treatment, the absolute wrong lesson to learn.)

TBH, the only environment in which it is fair to provide STEM program support without teaching exclusion or communicating special treatment is the Girl Scouts, because at least with girl scouts (and boy scouts), the grouping is about being with your peers and does not transit the message that girls need any special treatment with regards to some activities like STEM.

For a bunch of nerds that are always discussing how to get traction and adoption of ideas, I'm constantly floored that we don't realize that getting traction/adoption that leads to gender equality can really only start at the elementary school level. Every other solution that tries to solve the problem at the adult level often just breeds resentment (from men feeling that they have some sort of original sin or male nerds burden and women being taught they need special treatment instead of succeeding on their own merit).

If there is one piece out there that is required reading to really understand this, it is this article by Susan Sons.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software

but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues

Is an echo chamber really better, though?

In this case Raganwald twisted someone's disagreement with an idea into a purported attack on a person, inventing a victimhood that doesn't exist (finding an idea ridiculous isn't shaming an individual, and I would be humored to meet the delusional person who thinks they don't generate a constant stream of ridiculous ideas), which is a tactic of opinion suppression that is far too prevalent in gender discussions.

I think the question the parent is trying to raise is, is HN the right place for gender discussions in the first place? I have a dotjs script that filters out any political or social posts here because the conversations that occur are simply not constructive. That and the hate in those comments can be felt by anybody within a 10 foot radius who can see the expression on my face when I read them. I don't need that kind of poison derailing my day, so I stopped reading them.

However you feel about the original topic, you have to ask yourself: are those comment threads helping or hurting the community here?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com