[reuven]

These stories upset me deeply. But as much as they upset me, they surprise me. And that's because until it was just recently, after 20+ years in the computer industry, that I discovered how pervasive such behavior is.

I'm not happy that such stories take place. But I am happy that a growing number of women are telling their stories, shocking those of us who were able to be blissfully ignorant of what was going on, and forcing us to realize just how poorly our female colleagues are sometimes being treated.

Let's even assume that 90% of the time, things are great for women in high tech. How many women are willing to put up with even 10% (or even 1%) of their time dealing with such behavior? I'm not sure if I would. And then we wonder why so many women aren't interested in technology careers, or leave after a short period of time.

I hope that these stories eventually end. But in order for them to end, we need to hear more of them, to realize just how bad things are, and to make it completely unacceptable, in every way, for things to continue as they currently are.

[downandout]

To be sure, some of this is inappropriate. Asking if someone is the "token woman" is wrong on many levels. But not all of the stories are "shocking". For example, one woman in this article complains that at conferences, men tend to not approach groups of women that are talking to each other, interrupt them, and begin talking to them. Is that unusual or discriminatory? I wouldn't do that, regardless of the sex of the participants in a group chat.

Further, in the era of #MeToo, the chasm between men and women in the workplace will grow wider simply because of liability issues. One man's innocent, casual conversation with a female coworker can these days become that woman's #MeToo moment, aired publicly, both in the court of public opinion and in courts of law. This ultimately causes fewer interactions between men and women in the workplace - especially between direct reports and their managers - which can easily lead to fewer advancement opportunities. This is borne out in data. According to a recent study, almost 30% of male managers say they are not comfortable working alone with a woman — more than twice as many as before, according to the same study [1].

I would suggest that articles like this focus on incidents that everyone can agree is atrocious and actionable behavior. If failure to interrupt a group of women talking amongst themselves at a conference is now a #MeToo moment, it's just going to cause deeper concerns about liability, which will in turn cause even more backlash.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2018/02/06/amid...

[omikun]

> I wouldn't do that, regardless of the sex of the participants in a group chat.

That's what I thought initially as well. But the proper way to frame this is to ask: out of the population of men who would join a group of 3 men, how many would also join a group of 3 women? You and I aren't even part of the first group.

> This ultimately causes fewer interactions between men and women in the workplace

That's a real problem. The #metoo movement is great in getting the word out, but the backlash suppresses any men of trying to get it right. You can't expect people to make progress if they don't try, and if they try, they will make mistakes. It should be ok to make them and not get demonized in the process.

[gambiting]

"My “mentor” told me he had never worked with a woman before and wasn’t sure how to talk to me. I suggested he try talking to me like a person."

Tbf, because of stories like this, I feel almost uncomfortable talking to my female coworkers - I immediately tense up and I have no idea what I can or cannot say, I carefully weigh up my every word to make sure it doesn't, even accidentally, have a double meaning or something that could be seen as patronizing, offensive, or flirty. As a consequence, I would genuinely rather not talk with women in the workplace and just avoid the risk altogether, which I am sure is just making the problem worse.

[jiojfekjl]

I think you can relax. Most of these stories are not about subtle or accidental sexism. She says her teammate introduced her as a token female. That's obviously inappropriate, right? I don't think I'd need to monitor my words carefully to avoid saying something so outright belittling to a coworker.

She says team members would openly express that they wouldn't hire women because they would just get married. I don't know about you, but that seems like something obviously dated and wrong. Growing up, both my parents worked, and that was the norm. It's been the norm for a long time. Women aren't new to the work force. So why do people think this? In any case, it should be obvious not to say things like this.

Then she says a professor followed her beck to her room and tried to forcibly kiss her. That's something obviously wrong, right? It should be easy to say "I won't follow and forcibly kiss anyone." That's like good manners 101. Basic stuff we learn in 1st grade.

The sexism described here isn't the sort of thing you'd let slip by accident. There's no double meanings here. It's just bare faced disrespect for women. So please, relax. You don't need to walk on eggshells to avoid being a complete jerk.

And if you still aren't sure how to talk to women, I would take the articles own advice: Try talking to them like a person.

[tachyoff]

I can see the Buzzfeed story now: “White Tech Bro Rudely Interrupts Women To Mansplain Something”. There is absolutely a chilling effect. I mean, do you want men to approach you when you’re having a conversation or do you want them to stay away from your space? At this point, it’s easiest to just retreat and not talk to people. At least then you don’t risk becoming a hashtag.

[wavefunction]

Seems like you've presented a false dichotomy.

It's of course rude to insert yourself into many conversations. That's just a social convention.

[tachyoff]

Here's a catch-22 comment from elsewhere on this post:

> Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.

So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Given how easy it is for public opinion to shift, I certainly wouldn't want to take that chance. Who would want to interact with people like that in a professional setting? I wouldn't, and I try not to.

[urahara]

It's very unlikely to get blamed for polite respectful attention to females if you don't confuse it with any shades of sexist moves. You don't apply this logic to men, which is sexist, even considering that male jerks are a far more often thing than female ones. So why you just dont't stop contacting them first?

[derivagral]

I think the point they're trying to make is that the risk is close to zero for this for a straight male approaching other men, and that what you call "unlikely" is still likely enough with such a severe degree that the positive upside on such interactions is dwindling.

[anon12345690]

The issue isnt that the group is jerks (which is easy, you just stop and move on) but that they may bring down career ending social attacks on you. Unlikely with males even if superjerks.

[jiojfekjl]

"One man's innocent, casual conversation with a female coworker can these days become that woman's #MeToo moment"

Lets look at some notable #MeToo cases in the last year

1. Harvey Weinstein - Dozens of women accused Weinstein of assaulting, harassing, or raping them.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-ove...

2. Matt Lauer - Fired for inappropriate sexual relationship with a coworker. Not an isolated incedent, as many women came forward through his career with reports of sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances.

http://people.com/tv/matt-lauer-sexual-harassment-assault-al...

3. Mario Batali - Accused of sexual misconduct by multiple female employees. Repeated reports of Batali groping the breasts of women who worked for him.

https://ny.eater.com/2017/12/11/16759540/mario-batali-sexual...

So where is this "innocent conversation" you mention?

[throwaway12395]

The "innocent conversation" is the prior coworker of mine who was reprimanded by HR and put on a PIP for "bullying" a coworker when he tried to hold her accountable for work she was supposed to deliver under his lead.

I was present, as were a handful of other women. None of us were ever followed up with to ask if this was a legitimate accusation. The accuser was given a red carpet to a choice team. The accusee was given additional workload to carry and taken out of a position of authority and placed in a punitive program.

I have seen this happen twice in the last 3 years.

Do not take this as defense of the examples you mention, but as a warning against unintended consequences that simply don't ever show up in the press because they aren't highly visible and won't draw clicks, especially if they go against the status quo. If you need further evidence, look at the speed to which a concrete, evidence backed accusation with respect to google's hiring practices got flagged off the front page, whereas this thread is still much higher ranked after much longer time and fewer votes.

[anon12345690]

> where is this "innocent conversation" you mention?

Not those cherry-picked examples obviously? Do you have access to every single report in the world? Is it impossible that some might not be completely legitimate and can act as a way to retaliate?

[danso]

> ”I would suggest that articles like this focus on incidents that everyone can agree is atrocious and actionable behavior. If failure to interrupt a group of women talking amongst themselves at a conference is now a #MeToo moment, it's just going to cause deeper concerns about liability, which will in turn cause even more backlash.”

I’m reading this on the phone, so it’s likely I might have missed it, but does the article mention #MeToo in the context of the men vs. women groups complaint you mention? If not, it’s uncharitable to imply that the complainer here is trying to equate sexual assault with discrimination.

IMO the main problem with contemporary gender conflicts isn’t going to be “incidents that everyone can agree is atrocious and actionable behavior”. Because it’s not hard for society (usually) to act on such egregious incidents. It’s I guess a good thing that professional women don’t have to constantly worry about violent sexual assault, but the author is raising the issue that seemingly innocuous behavior can still be substantially harmful.

What is innocuous and what is not can still be a matter of healthy debate. But it’s worth noting how difficult it can be for even egregious behavior to get called out.

I think many people can agree that Susan Fowler’s blog post about her time at Uber constituted outright horrible behavior. HN commenters seemed very united in this sentiment [0] and I think many tech observers would agree that it wasn’t one very huge chip that set off the clusterfuck that was 2017 for Uber.

It may seem looking back that Fowler’s whistleblowing would inevitably cause such massive outrage. But re-read her post, which is almost as nostalgic as it is outraged. It’s not just about the harassment she faced, but the institutional resistance and denial that she, and more than a few other women faced — clearly, their complaints back then were not the level of clear cut incidents that you think should be focused on. And Fowler’s whistleblowing was just a personal blog post — not a big NYTimes expose —- written months after her departure, and likely only possible because she had the time and means to think about things and not worry about career implications. It’s very easy to imagine an alternate timeline in which she just didn’t get around to writing about Uber because even she, as she says herself in that post, was incredibly thankful and fulfilled from her work at Uber, sexual harassment aside.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682022

[urahara]

It's not #MeToo causing problems for sure since it attempts to battle sexism by raising awareness. It is sexism which causes all types of problems that you mention. Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.

[downandout]

Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.

I disagree with you that there is no reason to do so for “non-sexists”. Because no one knows how a given person may interpret a given conversation or activity, combined with the severe consequences from the social media mob that even something as simple as an unsubstantiated tweet can inflict on one’s career or an entire company these days, the only way to avoid liability is to minimize interaction between opposite sexes in the workplace. In this environment, it’s the only rational thing to do.

We have unleashed a virtual lynch mob, ready to instantly torch the life of anyone that stands accused of even moderately inappropriate or questionable behavior. Worse, there is no statute of limitations or standard of proof required to activate the mob - a tweet is enough. That is wrong and creates a toxic environment for everyone.

[urahara]

You dont't apply this logic to men somehow, despite the fact that male jerks can equally destroy you career. How about stopping your interactions with men as well then? essentially you suggest to ignore and reinforce a huge problem of sexism instead of learning how to behave correctly. This approach is harmful and stinks in both moral and professional sence. Sexism and discrimination create toxic environment, not people and actions attempting to battle it.

[zaarn]

To quote Nietzsche, "Those who fight Monsters should look to it that they do not become Monsters themselves".

In other words, people who "battle sexism and discrimination" can very well tip over and become sexist and discriminatory in the attempt to fix those exact issues.

They can become Monsters too.

The second part of this quote applies to. "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you".

If you fight sexism and discrimination long enough, you yourself will go under the spotlight and you'll eventually be judged for what you did. Whether good or evil.

[Caveman_Coder]

A recent reading of Nietzsche made me view what is currently going on socially through the lens of his master/slave morality...it makes watching the "Oppression Olympics" more entertaining anyway...you can really see the "resentment" play out in full view.

"Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be 'blamed' for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external 'evil'...Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction. According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment#Kierkegaard_and_N...

[urahara]

It's impossible to tip over fighting against institutionalized injustice. The whole history of fighting sexism, racism, discrimination didn't lead to getting rid of these problems yet and there is still a very long way to go.

[downandout]

>How about stopping your interactions with men as well then?

If a man accuses me of sexual harassment, that would be pretty easy to disprove (I’m straight) and most people would believe me. If a woman accuses me of that, in a MeToo world, my career is over, even if there is no evidence and I didn’t do it (being that we are living in the MeToo world, I guess I should say that for the record I have not ever knowingly sexually harassed anyone, and have never been accused of it).

[homonculus1]

This assessment naively assumes that only sexists can possibly become targets of #MeToo. Since #MeToo exists purely on a social level and without due process, the above is not the case.

[zimpenfish]

> One man's innocent, casual conversation with a female coworker can these days become that woman's #MeToo moment

Do you have any verified example of this happening?

[Consultant32452]

I think it's important to come up with some hard and fast rules pretty quickly and make sure it's clear to everyone. There was some pretty crappy stuff in those stories. At the same time, we need to be sympathetic to people who make mildly insensitive mistakes but at least appear to be trying to do the right thing.

For example, there's a difference between some of those guys getting physically aggressive and the one guy who basically said he'd never worked with a woman and didn't know how to talk to her.

Is the latter example okay? No, not really, but we must find a way to not lump that guy in with the physically aggressive guy. The second guy appears to be simply ignorant, but at least open minded enough to admit ignorance and try to awkwardly break the ice to move forward cooperatively.

Men and women have only worked together for about 40 years, which in anthropological/cultural time is basically nothing. We haven't figured out the rules yet. Is dating colleagues completely banned? Doubtful. That means we're going to have to accept some awkwardness between people who are trying to figure out if they like each other. But we can simultaneously say it's inappropriate to grope someone, it's not okay to call someone the "token" whatever, etc.

[rubidium]

Men and women have worked together for thousanda of years... not sure what you mean by the first part of the statement.

[fouc]

He's making a reference to women joining the modern work force in the western world since WW2.

It's not quite the same thing as how men and women worked together historically. There was probably more segregation back then too (and rampant sexism).

[Consultant32452]

Exactly this. Labor has been largely gender-segregated since before our tribal origins.

[rosser]

> Is the latter example okay? No, not really, but we must find a way to not lump that guy in with the physically aggressive guy.

Yes, it's important not to conflate those two very different behaviors. At the same time, however, we need to recognize that both are symptoms of the same underlying issue — and that's the thing that we ultimately have to change, not its case-specific behavioral expressions.

"Not as bad as" is a fallacy.

[Consultant32452]

My point is that the "I don't know how to talk to you" guy is participating in the conversation of how we move towards equality. It's as important to be sensitive to confused likely allies as it is to be sensitive to victims of inequality. Obviously you don't know a person by just a couple lines of a story, but it seems very likely he wants to be a positive influence he just doesn't know what to do. It's so very important to assist him in taking the right path while avoiding condemnation. Pointing at him and calling him the same names we call the physically aggressive guys is going to be counter-productive. It's just as easy to consider him part of the problem as it is to consider him a likely part of the solution whose ignorance is the result of the problem.

[rosser]

I think we're agreeing past one another here. I'm merely encouraging looking at these different behaviors, which of course warrant different responses, from a broader perspective. That keeps us in mind of why we're engaging with them differently — to guide how we do that.

Maybe that's implicit in what you're saying, but I think it's likely to be more effective when considered consciously. It frames how we think about the interaction.

[Consultant32452]

I don't believe they warrant just different responses, but opposite responses. The opening line of the article makes it clear that this encounter is placed squarely under the label of sexist. It sucks to be a de-facto ambassador because you're in the minority, but any time a person starts a conversation by openly admitting their ignorance and making it clear they want to move forward in a positive way should be counted as a win. This type of interaction is an essential and positive step in our transition towards equality. Scoffing at him by responding, "just talk to me like a person" or having all of us label him a sexist is going to do nothing but shut him down and turn away a likely ally.

We need something else to call this guy other than sexist. Something at least slightly positive like likely ally.

[rosser]

I'm curious why you use "scoffing" when The Fine Article simply says "suggested" to describe the manner of her response. What, in her two-sentence account of this experience, suggests she was overtly dismissive of his efforts?

[ethbro]

> to make it completely unacceptable, in every way, for things to continue as they currently are

This seems key. Especially if it's "relatively rare but intensely negative events" (as seems to be the case).

Imagine if for every one of these stories, a colleague of the person dealing with discrimination or peer of the discriminator had tapped them on the shoulder and said, "Professor, what the fuck are you doing? That's sexist, and you're a terrible human for having done that."

And imagine if after three times of the above their peers had said "This is a pattern of behavior with you. We'd feel better if the department were headed by someone with different values."

Discrimination survives on awkward tolerance.

[whatshisface]

>Imagine if for every one of these stories, a colleague of the person dealing with discrimination or peer of the discriminator had tapped them on the shoulder and said,

I think the problem is that this stuff can be very hard to detect. If there's even the slightest chance of negative repercussions then the few responsible will stop talking.

[ethbro]

I'll respectively disagree. Granted, my personal experience is with antiquated southern racism, but I'd hazard most of the people in the OPs' stories do these things because they don't realize they're wrong.

In the "Well, why wouldn't you comment on a woman's pregnancy when evaluating her for a job?" sense.

There are certainly overt, aggressive, predatory stories included. But the bulk are things I can see being said in social or professional company.

Or as Colleague B puts it: "When asked for a paragraph, my first reaction was that I didn’t have the sort of big bombshell stories being looked for."

Borderline, casual sexism is important to vocally fight too.

[gowld]

> Borderline, casual sexism is important to vocally fight too.

Perhaps. Ideally. Eventually. But in a choose-your-battles context, borderline casual cases are fodder for contrarian denialists to minimize the over-the-line serious cases.

Focus on vocally fighting the most important or most fixable problem first, to make progress.

[longerthoughts]

I get that bringing the slightest offenses to the forefront feeds into denialists arguing that everybody is just too sensitive. That being said, I would bet that women suffer more frequently from these borderline, casual cases than violent, overt ones and I'm much more likely to see the former in broad daylight, especially in a professional context. It's hard to accept that I should brush off sexist comments and hold my tongue until I witness an assault (or whatever the threshold is for intervention-worthy).

[IntronExon]

Lingchi: Death by a thousand cuts.

Can you imagine how stressed and miserable you’d be, how untrusting and isolated, if your every interaction carried significant and unknown risk of turning out as described in the article? How many of the self-styled introverts here would be able to get out of bed after the hundredth time someone they thought was a colleague or a friend acted as described in the article?

What you’re saying was said to black people during civil rights, and women trying to get the vote. What you miss is the pervasive and cumulative effect of casual, constant shit, peppered with outright abuse.

[curtis]

> ... things are great for women in high tech.

Why do so many people keep insisting on believing that the problem is specific to the technology fields? Women face these kind of problems everywhere that they have to interact with men.

[mcguire]

Because tech is new and likes to think of itself as better than that.

"Look, we were harassed and discriminated against all through high school! We would never treat anyone like that."

[reuven]

I didn't mean to say that it only happens in high tech. But:

(1) I'm in technology for 20+ years, and didn't know this sort of thing happens, and

(2) Technology people often like to think that we're in a meritocracy, in which smart/good people do well, regardless of whether they're male or female.

These stories, along with many others, have shattered my naivete. We're just as bad as everyone else -- and maybe worse -- and need to actively combat it.

[longerthoughts]

While I think you're right that people generally like to pick on tech, I think the portion of the comment you're quoting was only referencing tech to make the hypothetical case more relatable to members of this community.

[mikeash]

Who says it’s specific to technology? There are plenty of similar stories in other fields.

[aidenn0]

because nearly everyone in this discussion is in tech; while sexism in the hang-gliding community might be as bad or worse, I'm not part of the hang-gliding community so I can do less to affect it.

[gumby]

> Why do so many people keep insisting on believing that the problem is specific to the technology fields? Women face these kind of problems everywhere that they have to interact with men.

Straw man? I prefer to think of it as "I work in tech and I am glad these issues are being publicised and (I hope) enough people think it's a big enough problem that finally it's being addressed, I hope seriously."

I can't do anything about, say, mining, construction, advertising, film, retail...but I can have some influence in tech and life sciences businesses.

[sulam]

4 is in the domain of real numbers.

Does me talking about 4 somehow imply all the other real numbers aren't real?

Yes, women face these kinds of problems in more than just computer science or technology in general. However this article and this post are talking specifically. Perhaps they feel that they cannot fix a problem that exists "everywhere" and are focused on their narrow slice of the domain. This does not prevent you from talking about other slices of the domain, or the entire domain, or working to reduce the problems women and others face in whatever piece of the domain you choose.

Also, at the risk of producing a defensive reaction -- why do you believe that the poster believes the problem is specific to the technology fields? What in their statement leads you to the conclusion that they think this is an isolated problem?

[InclinedPlane]

Every indication has always been that this was the problem with tech and how women are treated in it (and many other fields). They are constantly having to prove themselves, they are constantly denigrated by their coworkers and colleagues, they are routinely made to feel unsafe through sexual harassment of varying severity. Overall they're just treated like second class citizens in the field. And that results in women leaving the field routinely and at basically every transitional step, that's why you see a continual diminishment in the representation of women in the field as you go towards greater positions of seniority and authority. It's not that women can't hack it, that they can't do the work, they just get tired of being shit on constantly and they go somewhere else to make their life better.

And yet for years and years and years the constant refrain from the establishment has always been "nah, it must be that women are just bad at this job" or "nah, it must be a pipeline problem". Nobody wants to look themselves in the face and ask whether or not they are part of the problem. Either through not taking women seriously in the workplace, always questioning the work and fitness of women in a way that men don't experience, or allowing a hostile work environment where sexual harassment happens and everyone just sweeps it under the rug or looks the other way.

Women have been telling each other these stories about what it was like to work in tech for decades, and they've been telling anyone, including guys, who would listen for years and years as well. Why has it taken so much work for people to actually pay attention?

[forapurpose]

> Every indication has always been that this was the problem with tech ...

I agree completely, and it's incredible that so many people with exceptional critical thinking skills could dismiss the universal, consistent reports of the witnesses to these events, in favor of the analysis of people who have no experience at all - themselves and other men. And that includes me: WTF was I thinking? Everyone who experienced these things said the same thing, people who had no direct experience said otherwise, and I believed the latter? If everyone in Honolulu said the grass in Hawaii is dewy in the mornings, and everyone in Ohio said it isn't - why would you even ask the Ohioans?

The same applies to the treatment of African-Americans by law enforcement. African-Americans have been talking about it for generations, the same stories over time and across the U.S. Why did it take videos for me to believe it?

My guess is that it comes from accepting social norms of the people around me, and dismissing people I didn't interact with. The solution, IMHO, is interacting with people outside your group and people telling their stories, as they did in this article. If you want to know what's really happening on issues like these, forget all your theories - just ask and listen (and zip it). The most ardent theories suddenly become insubstantial in the face of evidence.

[reuven]

Maybe it's because I'm in Israel, where I'd like to think that things are better than the US (although I'm far from sure that's true).

Maybe it's because I'm self employed, so I don't have regular "colleagues" to tell me these things.

Mybe it's because I (and other men) didn't make it clear that we were willing to listen, although I sure hope not.

For whatever reason, I believed that sexual harassment is occasional. Not as pervasive, and not as constant as the growing number of stories has made clear.

The more stories we hear, the better (I think) things will be. So keep telling these stories.

[edanm]

For what it's worth (I'm in Israel too), I also recently gained a new perspective on the problem of sexual harassment, though not specifically in the hi-tech industry. This was a few years before the #MeToo movement.

In my case, it was because I had a frank conversation with a female friend, where she told me a few typical stories. Things like her sitting on the bus, and the guy next to her will suddenly start touching her, or trying to kiss her. With her giving absolutely no sign of interest and not knowing the person beforehand (she's actually gay). And similar stories in other situations.

She said it happened to her about 10 times already. This is the kind of clear-cut sexual harassment which I naively thought was rare, but apparently is so common, that it's just shrugged off as a nuisance in many cases. It completely changed my perspective on just how common this is for women, even if I believe only a minority of men act in this way.

[empath75]

I think the reason that a lot of men are surprised about this is that they don’t personally engage in this kind of behavior and have only seen people they know engage in it occasionally, so that can’t believe it’s this widespread, but it really doesn’t take that many aggressively harassing men in an environment to create a completely oppressive environment for women. Especially when they report it and there are absolutely no consequences.

[InclinedPlane]

Especially when reporting it leads to consequences for the victim and not the perpetrator.