[unit91]

> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are good they have no business in the story.

Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc. only creates an environment where people can't think straight about the issue at hand.

[jordigh]

The article isn't saying that we shouldn't focus on women in science or that we shouldn't be writing articles about them. It says we shouldn't emphasise stereotypes about their femininity, but it still talks about how we have to address the inherent sexism that exists.

> The issue, she says, is that when you emphasize a woman’s sex, you inevitably end up dismissing her science.

That's the point. Write about women. We need to hear about more women. Just don't emphasise how exceptional their sex is. That's how you normalise women in science.

[bvc35]

Why write about women specifically unless your intention is to emphasize the accomplishments of their sex in the field? This sounds a lot like "write about women more, but don't say you're writing about someone because she's a woman."

[munchbunny]

That's exactly the point.

If you take it out of the context of gender issues, it makes sense.

Want to destigmatize homosexuality? Write about people going about their lives normally, who happen to be homosexual. Make TV shows of "two dads" or "two moms" where they're just like any other TV couple. Do it for a few years and people become more comfortable with the idea, as if the new default was always the case.

With gender stuff, in my experience no matter how you do it someone will always have a beef with any active effort to correct subtle gendered dynamics in a field. If you believe that correction is needed, then what's left is choosing which potentially objectionable (to certain people) way you're going to do it. If you don't, then the debate isn't about how to do it, the debate is about whether there's a problem that needs a solution.

If you say "hey look she's a woman and she did this amazing thing!" someone will complain that you should be celebrating that a person did it, rather than pushing a woman-specific agenda. So instead, another way to do it is to not call out the woman part, crank up the frequency, and get people accustomed to "Oh, yeah, she's a woman too." Someone who knows that's what you're doing might accuse you of intentionally skewing representation. That's a valid objection, but that's a tradeoff. The benefit is that this method is more more likely to work in the long term on people who already have their guards up.

Over time, the hope is that turns into "What do you mean? Of course women are capable of that, what's the big deal?" Pretty sure that's an end state most people would want.

[AnimalMuppet]

I thought about this when Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court. I think that there's a four-step process society goes through:

1. She's female and hispanic. She can't serve on the Supreme Court.

2. She's female and hispanic, but she's nominated for the Supreme Court anyway! (See how enlightened we are?)

3. She's nominated for the Supreme Court. Nobody bothers to mention that she's female and hispanic.

4. People mention that she's female and hispanic, but only in the same way that they'd mention that she once did ballet or that she's an amateur fencer - as personal interest, not as a statement about her qualification to serve on the Supreme Court.

When Kagan was nominated, we were at step 2. (Which is progress - a generation earlier, we were at step 1). But we should be moving on to step 3, where nobody talks about such stuff because it's irrelevant. Ideally we should wind up at step 4, but I'm not sure that we can without going through step 3 first. And when we do start going to step 4, people are going to get uptight, because mentioning gender and race are going to raise fears that we're going back to step 2...

[bvc35]

If I were reading that article, I would want to read that she is female and Hispanic because the personal story of a Hispanic woman (probably) overcoming unique challenges to reach that position in the country is very interesting and notable.

[bvc35]

If you crank up the frequency of mentioning women, you are still pushing a woman-specific agenda and tacitly admitting that women still need your help to succeed.

[jordigh]

Yes, I'm saying what it sounds like. The reason you should do that is because there's a sexism problem, and by talking about women without talking about them being women, we can normalise their presence.

Let me add: there's no point in saying "I didn't do it!" or "don't blame me!" or "don't blame men!" or whatever. Blame and guilt are pointless and sexism exists no matter whose fault it is. Fix the problem of sexism, forget the blame.

[chongli]

we have to address the inherent sexism

If it's inherent, then what can we do about it?

[crooked-v]

To me, this sounds like an excuse to pretend that systematic inequality doesn't exist, and thereby imply that not being able to rise above it is a personal failing.

[Broken_Hippo]

It isn't that it doesn't exist. No one is saying not to write about inequalities and stuff like that - it happens, and there should be articles about it.

But tone matters, and after a while, tone has an effect on people's attitudes. If you are writing about a scientist's breakthrough technology, just write about that. There isn't a need to write about the scientist being female any more than it is to write about them being male. This way, both sexes are treated more similarly. The article about their personal passions, disadvantages, and so on can be another story altogether, but not the one pretending to be about the discovery.

If you'd give a little background about a straight, white male, it might list some interesting things about the person. Surely the most interesting thing about being female isn't being female. Same for sexual orientation. I know these are true for me. I'm female and bisexual, but these don't tell you anything about me, really. I'm vastly more interesting if folks write about me being an immigrant, that I met my spouse online, or that I'm an artist.

The outcome is that the tone is that x person did y, and treats being female (or whatever) as just a thing that is, a completely normal thing. It rubs off on readers.

[andosa]

Women are twice as likely to get a tenure position in STEM when compared to equally qualified men http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/women-best-men-stem-f...

[projektir]

I don't really see why it would imply that. That problem only really shows up if you start treating successful people as gods or somehow fundamentally superior people, which is not really required when writing a scientist bio.

Sometimes not bringing something up is powerful. If you achieved something, would you really want people talking about your relationship status in your bio?

[mieseratte]

To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who dares challenge your personal orthodoxy.

[dang]

Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else may be, so please don't post like this to Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Incidentally, no one likes anyone who challenges their personal orthodoxy, and we all have one.)

[mieseratte]

Writing off folks opinions as "just an excuse" is rather insulting, impolite, and antagonistic.

That I had the audacity to directly call out that behavior instead of coaching attacks in vague language is the only difference here.

By your own, cited guidelines

> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it.

This whole conversation is off-base. Consistency in the application of rule would be great. This seems like the exact kind of situation that calls for a detach / remove.

[crooked-v]

Systematic inequality is a subject of statistical science, not personal orthodoxy.

A simple example are the various studies that show that "white" resumes get more attention that minority resumes: https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes...

[mieseratte]

> Systematic inequality is a subject of statistical science, not personal orthodoxy.

The comment you replied to had nothing to do with whether or not inequality exists, only that articles that unnecessarily bring up race, gender, etc. are pandering to the identity-politics crowd.

[brightball]

Reminds me of the presidential debate gender swap experiment at NYU

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/...

[nothis]

That assumes neither side is in a disadvantage when it remains unmentioned. Which isn't the case.

[unit91]

Does it? Or does it just mean it isn't relevant to this scientific article? I think the latter.

I grew up very poor, got my degrees on academic scholarships, and have published scientific findings. I'd hate it if my work attracted media attention, only to have the bulk of it focus on my impoverished childhood. What about my work? Why doesn't that merit a focused discussion?

[solipsism]

Whether the subject hates it is one factor among many. There's also: personal ethics, professional ethics, what the reader wants, political agendas, etc.