[javascriptlol]

The problem with these posts is that we only hear the horror stories. We get a sensational picture of constant harassment from one unlucky person. Most of what was written here was outright harassment. In many places it would be seen as outright illegal for the company to allow this to continue.

I take issue with complaining about "subtle" sexism, however. Life is not fair for men either. In fact, unfairness is universal in life for reasons that are out of anybody's control. By pushing for unobtainable fairness, you are training people to expect fairness, which is disabling. Boys are attacked by other boys in school. You are constantly tested by other males for signs of fear. Big deal. It toughens you up for later life. Gender "equality" in many ways has become just another production output to be maximised without regard to secondary costs.

[antiterra]

We're not talking about "life" in any sort of universal context. Whatever 'female privilege' you can try to conjure up in general is largely irrelevant to this very specific setting: a technology profession. Is it really unobtainable to not tend towards choosing the woman to be the head of the potluck or to take notes just because she's a woman? Is it really that unobtainable to not make jokes about PMS or breasts? We're in a really sad state if it's impossible to go to work and not do those things, and a sadder one if those things are so important people will fight for the ability to do them.

[javascriptlol]

You are painting these things as universal. If there were some rule about women and potlucks I'd care. As it is, there is not. I have never even seen a potluck in the workplace! There are much bigger, structural problems to worry about right now. It's like we're on a boat with a hole in the bottom and every interest group is complaining that their feet are getting wetter than all the others. We wouldn't have this problem if the environment were more conducive to smaller businesses - women could avoid these problems by becoming their own bosses. Instead of escaping our entrapments we are arguing for better conditions in the prison.

[antiterra]

It seems you're suggesting that working for a company in the technology industry is being imprisoned or that it's prohibitively (and increasingly?) difficult to start a small technology business. As far as I can tell, tech is still a growth industry, and the boats are floating higher, not sinking.

Even if so, why is it irrelevant to bring up a specific reason that women might leave a company? If I was my own boss and had female employees that I wished to retain, I'd consider OP's article to contain a very important lesson.

Also, just because someone has a serious case of cancer doesn't mean it's a waste of their time to complain about someone punching them in the face. Yes, they have a 'much bigger' problem to worry about, but that doesn't mean everything else goes out the window.

[javascriptlol]

You use sophistry. Punches to the face face will make a cancer patient worse. In fact, getting the flu may kill them. The poster is not a cancer patient; presumably, they are a reasonable independent person with some self esteem. So they are capable of learning resilience. We need to distinguish between small harms that ultimately do us good and large harms that are sending society on a destructive course.

[antiterra]

Because of your plea for civil discussion, I mistakenly assumed that you would interpret my words in good faith (and, for the record, I can't downvote.) Instead, I suppose I should have qualified the hypothetical punches as just sufficient in force to cause pain and irritation but not enough to exacerbate health issues. I'm really not sure what the flu has to do with anything, facial contusions are quite a different thing than a systemic infection.

The point still stands, that small issues matter even when there are bigger issues.

You have given nothing to support the argument that treating someone as subservient based on gender 'ultimately does us good.'

Toughening (or lightening) up is a good thing. I was bullied in school to a distressing degree. Later in my life, I went through training where I learned to shrug off hits far worse than any bully had given me. Sometimes they were accidental and I laughed about it.

However, that doesn't mean it's ok for someone to just walk up to me and sock me in the face. It doesn't mean that it's ok to attack people and just demand that they toughen up and deal with it.

By your argument we should all treat each other like complete crap at home and at work, because it will build character like a lifelong boot camp. Heck, maybe we should treat women specifically like crap so they can get more resilient and perform better than men.

Of course, another poster claims that computer programmers are awkward around women and have such bad self-esteem they should be forgiven. I wonder how well they would fare if the tables were turned.

Honestly, it sounds like an argument born out of the desire to not give up being a jerk to women. It sounds like "lighten up," for no real reason. And, whatever the development potential, it's pushing women away from the field.

[javascriptlol]

>You have given nothing to support the argument that treating someone as subservient based on gender 'ultimately does us good.'

I never said this. Quote me where I said this, or I will be forced to regard you as a liar.

And I never said "small issues don't matter". Why make things up? I am saying that I am bored with endless complaints that exist around noise level. Since I posted a few times and I may not have been redundant enough, I'll be explicit in that I think taunting women about their breasts in the workplace is despicable and anyone who witnessed such a thing should immediately speak up. Anything less is cowardice.

My beef with this post is the complaints about "subtle" sexism. People don't seem to understand that people are unfair to others all the time. There is nothing but a kind of blind secular faith that eliminating these micro-injustices is going to help anybody. So you show me someone who refuses to hire women or abuses them and I will tell them where to stick it. I stand up to people who promote ideas I think are harmful. But I don't want to hear about "perceived" problems that are indistinguishable from the noise-level unfairness that nobody can stop ("boohoo I got asked to take some notes and I think it _might_ have been because I am a woman"). If you don't want to take notes say "no". Better yet do a shitty job. Instead we have people arguing about how one type of slave gets whipped on the buttocks and the other gets it on the thigh, missing the point that if we set the slaves free they wouldn't be getting whipped at all. But don't let me stop you opining about the decor while the house burns down.

And the people down-voting me are just PC thugs with no ability to confront an alternate point of view.

[antiterra]

Replying here since we reached the thread root.

> >You have given nothing to support the argument that treating someone as subservient based on gender 'ultimately does us good.'

> I never said this. Quote me where I said this, or I will be forced to regard you as a liar.

You said, in the context of the OP's complaint about "'subtle' sexism":

> We need to distinguish between small harms that ultimately do us good and large harms that are sending society on a destructive course.

If you weren't arguing the poster's issue with subtle sexism as was one of those small harms then you've just been going on a random tangent.

If someone accuses you of saying something you didn't mean, it's not necessarily because they are lying or making things up. It could be a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation or a lack of clarification on either side. Further, if someone summarizes or distills your argument and cannot source that summary verbatim, that also doesn't mean it's a lie or inaccurate.

> And I never said "small issues don't matter". Why make things up?

You said this:

> There are much bigger, structural problems to worry about right now. It's like we're on a boat with a hole in the bottom and every interest group is complaining that their feet are getting wetter than all the others.

which implies that people shouldn't be complaining about their feet getting wet because there's a bigger issue. It very much implies that you think small issues should be ignored in favor of the large issues.

Why is it wrong to ask for people to attempt to refrain from being subtly sexist? Is it really that difficult of a thing to do?

[javascriptlol]

Thank you for your clarifications. I'm glad we've been able to get past the quibbles.

I don't think smaller issues should be ignored. Continuing my metaphor, I don't think the flu should be ignored. It is a health problem that must be addressed. But for most healthy individuals it is properly addressed by sleep, fluids and relaxation. Sometimes people get it badly and theuy need further treatment. But by stuffing everyone with antibiotics to prevent the mere possibility of pneumonia or even bronchitis, we are causing secondary problems such as antibiotic resistance. Similarly, whenever we try to over-think human interaction we grow the beast of rationalistic meddling.

Trying to eliminate the flu would be foolish. Stuffing people with antibiotics is foolish. I am not making a dogmatic statement about how all small problems are irrelevant. I am expressing frustration with more complaints over increasingly marginal grievances. It points to a lack of character and a mindless quest to maximise some sense of fairness that for me often lacks authenticity. If we become touchy about small issues we will lose all resilience and perspective.

Leaving aside despicable comments about breasts and so forth that we can easily address through instant reprimand, I don't think being asked to do the notes in a meeting or organise a potluck represents subservience. It is just as stupid as complaining about a request for "a few strong men" to help move some things. Or the stupid outrages over "mrs" versus "ms". People are so sensitive. Raise your objection or get on with it.

I'm not saying the poster is a bad person here. I don't think it's wrong to make this post. Nor would I think it's wrong for someone to complain about any number of other trivial things. But it does point to a sense of entitlement and lack of resilience. I don't like that, and I think we should be working against that trend, not with it.

[javascriptlol]

Don't downvote, respond. I am not abusing anyone here.

[jasonlotito]

I'm not downvoting, or commenting on the topic. However, comments like yours here should be downvotes. It's a comment that contributes nothing, simply you whining about being downvoted. If you honestly care about quality, you shut up about pointless numbers that mean nothing.

[wpietri]

Your justification of bullying and aggression is just sad.

Life isn't intrinsically fair, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to make it so. Further, that men don't have perfect lives does not somehow imply that sexism is ok. We can end it. We will.

[javascriptlol]

Your response is sad, because you accuse me of things I never said. I never said "bullying" was justified. Infectious disease is a fact of life. We can wash our hands and prevent the worst plagues, but there is every reason to think that total elimination of disease would be ecologically unsound for humans. People need an immune system. Do you think that I am now "justifying" HIV? It's not "sexism" to be a prejudiced human being.

[wpietri]

You justified bullying when you talked about how childhood aggression is useful because it toughens the victim up for later life (that is, putting up with other aggression).

Sexism is not some uncontrollable virus. Sexism is something that people do to other people. And, happily something that some people don't do to other people. We have a choice, and pretending otherwise is absurd.

[javascriptlol]

Give me one example of a society where youthful aggression has been eliminated.

[javascriptlol]

Again, HN shames itself by down-voting a point it has no answer. Someone show me how we can eliminate "bullying" and unfairness anymore than we can eliminate disease. Too much social control will just give rise to new problems, thus creating more need for the "fairness" industry.

[wpietri]

There's a big difference between "can't answer" and "no point in answering". For me, you've put yourself in the latter bucket.

[strix_varius]

Wait, you mean you wouldn't sacrifice the workplace happiness of your entire office to satisfy the hypersensitivity of one employee?