[lukev]

So, this is subtle, because everything you say is good advice and can't really be argued against. Calm down, don't overreact, give the benefit of the doubt, be constructive, etc, etc. These are basic, undeniable principles of good human interaction.

But. But. Consider an alternative hypothesis; that the author really did experience a bit of nasty, petty sexism.

In that case, responses like yours at best sweep the problem under the rug, and at worst patronizingly pat the woman on the head and tell her not to be hysterical.

In other words, if this is a real problem, your undeniably good advice actually isn't constructive towards fixing the root issue. It's allowing it to perpetuate.

[zzalpha]

In other words, if this is a real problem, your undeniably good advice actually isn't constructive towards fixing the root issue. It's allowing it to perpetuate.

And raging on Tumblr is?

Look, if there's some deeply embedded injustice going on, here, it's not evident from this single exchange.

If this single exchange is part of a broader pattern with this person, that's something a manager and HR can help deal with, and you would be very well advised to keep cool in order to avoid escalating the situation further. Maintaining the moral high-ground isn't just about ideals, it's also practical advice for winning out in an exchange like this.

If this exchange is part of a larger, company-wide or societal trend, speaking about it rationally is still the better course as, right now, it's very hard to take this person seriously. Without additional context, this just looks like an insecure 20-something who's just struggling with their first workplace confrontation.

To some up: I can think of no scenario where behaving as this person has done will improve the situation, whether it's a one-off, or something systemic.

Edit:

Incidentally, it's entirely possible that this person raged out on their blog as part of processing this whole thing, then stepped back and started looking for a constructive path forward.

If that's the case, great.

Everything I've written, here, presumes that this post represents their definitive reaction to the situation, which may be entirely unfair.

[lukev]

If there is a systemic problem, then yes, loud, fervent and frequent verbal raging from all quarters is an appropriate response. "Keep your head down" has never been a constructive strategy for minority groups targeted by discrimination.

Look, I don't know what the truth is here. To some extent I don't care. But I do know that there is a pervasive problem with sexism in tech, and I know that every time you or I publicly comment on it, we take a side.

If you show support, you're sending the message to everyone that that discrimination is not cool.

If you publicly undermine the reliability or emotional state of the reporter, you are actively re-affirming the status quo and denying that there is a problem. If you doubt the reliability of someone, do it privately. Don't comment at all. As it is, I can only assume that you actively oppose the growing movement to try and solve this problem.

Speech acts matter. Even online.

[zzalpha]

"Keep your head down" has never been a constructive strategy for minority groups targeted by discrimination.

Where did I say she should do that?

I said she should be mature and maintain the moral high ground. I didn't say she should shut up.

Perhaps you're reading more into my words than is actually there?

If you publicly undermine the reliability or emotional state of the reporter, you are actively re-affirming the status quo and denying that there is a problem.

If you assume all workplace confrontations between man and woman represent some form of sexism, you diminish the actual struggles of women everywhere.

----

As a related aside, Dr. King had a few words to say along these lines, including:

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.

It would seem you would've told King he should keep his observations to himself.

[lukev]

You keep re-framing this in terms of "a workplace confrontation," yet your only engagement with this situation, at all, is an eyewitness account claiming it was problematic.

Negating and ignoring the subjective experience of women is very root of the problem in question. And that's exactly what you're doing!

Also, white males quoting MLK at minorities to get them to behave is so cliche, it's actually a pretty reliable signal of bad faith. I would advise you to avoid it in the future.

[zzalpha]

Negating and ignoring the subjective experience of women is very root of the problem in question.

You do realize you can criticize someone of being a bad actor without aiding and abetting sexism.

Can't you?

Or would you have me believe that criticizing, say, the Black Panthers or the IRA for their actions is basically racist, too?

Also, white males quoting MLK at minorities to get them to behave is so cliche, it's actually a pretty reliable signal of bad faith.

And not learning anything from illuminating, historical analogies, and the wisdom of luminaries from those struggles, is evidence of willful ignorance.

The fact that you assume I'm a "white male", and therefore that my quoting a black man is "cliche" is also borderline racist... Would it have been better if I quoted Ghandi? Jesus? Which leaders espousing views of peace, justice, and understanding in the face of adversity would you prefer I'd have quoted, given your assumptions about my gender and ethnicity?

[hsod]

This is some scary thinking. "You're either with us or against us."

I'm all for fighting sexism in tech, but I'm not interested in being an ideological robot.

> If you doubt the reliability of someone, do it privately. Don't comment at all. As it is, I can only assume that you actively oppose the growing movement to try and solve this problem.

You are advocating for HN to cease being a discussion forum and to become an instrument of political propaganda. No thanks.

[AnimalMuppet]

What is your default assumption?

Stuff happens. Is your default assumption that the stuff is sexism in action?

Look, there is sexism. I don't deny it. You know it, I know it, and everyone who isn't actively in denial knows it.

But there are also honest misunderstandings. And there are personal, petty actions that are just because people are petty. Even if the recipient is female, it isn't always sexism.

So, when a situation happens, what is your default assumption? Do you immediately assume that it's sexism (or racism, or ageism, or whatever happens to best fit the identity of the recipient)?

I suggest that the default assumption should be that it's accidental and/or just pettiness. When a pattern develops (like, yes, this person is petty and vindictive, but only to females), then you can claim sexism. And then you should challenge it, rather than let it slide.

[lukev]

This argument is insidious, because it's extremely difficult to document a pattern, particularly when folk come out of the woodwork to undermine each and every individual anecdote claiming sexism (as in this and every other thread like this on HN. Even, I would point out, in cases where the sexism is undeniable to any rational observer).

Do you have to believe every anecdote? Of course not. Should you let those women have a voice to air their perceived grievances, without stifling them in the name of "fairness" or "defaults"? To do any less is the very definition of institutional sexism.

[AnimalMuppet]

I wasn't talking about the discussion here on HN. I was talking about when something happens to a female in the workplace. Is it just that Mr X had a bad day? Or is he a jerk to everyone? Or is he just a jerk to the female employees? You (the female employee) need more than one incident to tell. And you (the HN readers) usually don't have enough data to tell one way or the other.

[tcdent]

> "Look, I don't know what the truth is here. To some extent I don't care. But I do know that there is a pervasive problem with sexism in tech, and I know that every time you or I publicly comment on it, we take a side. If you show support, you're sending the message to everyone that that discrimination is not cool."

If I wanted to effectively promote animal rights socially I would not affiliate myself with PETA. Champion the articles that have a clear message and reflect your values, not just any opportunity to cheer for your team.

You'll come cross as being a lot more trustworthy if you're honest about what you stand for.

> Speech acts matter. Even online.

To my point: every time the reader sees disinformation they lose a little more faith in your movement.

[dragonwriter]

> But. But. Consider an alternative hypothesis; that the author really did experience a bit of nasty, petty sexism.

Actually, I'd say GPs advice is the right course of action, in part precisely because real sexism might be involved. In addition to providing a productive way forward if that is not the case, it also avoids an overreaction which provides an excuse for (and thus masks the sexism of) any adverse action in the future.

It doesn't sweep anything under the rug, in fact, it is the best approach for bringing what is actually happening out in the open (rather than escalating the one clear, undebatable problem in the situation under discussion, which is that people are acting based on unsubstantiated assumptions about others motivations.)