[jv22222]

My thought is that it's not because they mean to be rude. It's because they pattern match. I've noticed when folks see the same pattern over and over it's difficult to see outside it.

My friends wife is an F16 fighter pilot. I was surprised to find that out. Truth is I should not have been surprised, but it went against the patterns I'm used to seeing.

I wonder if that's at play here?

[parfe]

>My thought is that it's not because they mean to be rude. It's because they pattern match. I've noticed when folks see the same pattern over and over it's difficult to see outside it.

Awful lot of words you used to avoid typing "sexism". Hide behind whatever phrasing you prefer, but automatically assigning a person gender roles out of intellectual laziness embodies sexism.

[roflc0ptic]

At risk of sounding flippant, I feel like you're bringing a certain amount of unwarranted pattern matching to this. The person you're responding to is 1. bringing up a cognitive bias, 2. positing that it might be the mechanism that's causing this treatment, and 3. saying he shouldn't exhibit that bias.

It's thoughtful, and while he's using different language, describing his approach here as "hiding" is pretty ungenerous. I'd guess that you're used to people being kinda shitty about this stuff, and so you saw someone say something that could be part of some ugly apologetics and just went with your heuristics.

(edit) Also, let me add, sometimes it's easier to talk about the mechanisms of sexism rather than the phenomenon. Ideologically I'm super anti-racist/homophobic/sexist/patriarchy/capitalist blah blah blah but talking about those things straight out often feels like the worst place to have a productive conversation from. Compare "The prison industrial complex is a function of white supremacy", vs, "dang, it's messed up that people of color on average get way harsher sentences for the same crime." Context is very important, of course, but sometimes using a lot of words is better communication.

[thibauts]

Calling people sexist when they try to bring a valid point pretty much amounts to intellectual laziness too, don't you think ?

Like it or not, our brains are wired to be able to ignore unusual cases and save complete analysis of each and every situation. This course of evolution may be why you and I are able to post on this website, after all. Sexism, racism an any other form of discrimination are made of this. That's very sad, yes.

I want to make another point. Sexism is refusing to aknowledge the possibility for a woman to be technical, for exemple. Assuming she probably isn't is not sexism, it is an often-correct assumption. This doesn't make the man (or the woman) who makes this assumption a monster.

So I understand women's frustrations very well as I can be the one discriminated in various other situations, but don't blame it too quickly on people. Blame it first on evolution, the same evolution that allows you to not think to much about it when you have to breathe.

[jacalata]

Assuming she probably isn't is not sexism, it is an often-correct assumption.

It's both.

related - one of the things I hate about hn is people whining "that's an appeal to authority, that's a logical fallacy, how dare you say you would believe a 50 year old hr manager about workplace customs over my 13 year old sister!" Technically they're correct, if I were invested in the argument I should follow up both proposals equally and not just dismiss one. But in real life, ain't nobody got time for that, and we use heuristics instead. The trick is identifying the biases I'm using as a heuristic, and also identofying which of these heuristics are hurting other people and when it is worth doing the long route of checking each argument - for the cocktail party example, would it kill people to just ask a woman what she does, even if they probably aren't in tech?

[nicolethenerd]

But it is just pattern matching - 'sexism' seems to connote intent, or at least some kind of discrimination / negativity. Assuming that a woman you meet is more likely to be non-technical than technical is just probability - it's not a great thing, but I do it too, and I am a woman. It doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't be in tech, or that I'm surprised when they are - just more likely than not, in my experience, women in tech companies are found in non-technical roles.

[OverlordXenu]

It has very little to do with intent. Subconsciously thinking someone with a name usually thought to indicate blackness—like Tyrone—is different is racist. Subconsciously disbelieving that a woman can answer technical questions or is a fighter pilot is sexist. It may not necessarily be your fault, because society and your peers have taught you this, but that doesn't really matter. Especially because you have a responsibility to actively work against stereotypes and treat people as people.

Having intent behind it just makes it worse, really. And "intent" is difficult to define.

[jv22222]

"Disbelieving"? Or "unaware"? Disbelieving has intent. Unaware is simply not thinking about it. Would you say it is ok to not think about something due to unawareness? Or would you say that was being sexist?

[jacalata]

Its usually called privilege or internalized bias.

[melindajb]

Here is why pattern matching is bullshit:

https://medium.com/best-thing-i-found-online-today/8178b2794...

Here, I'll even save you the trouble of clicking:

To be direct: Pattern recognition is bullshit voodoo pseudo-science masquerading as objectivity and meritocracy. It’s sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, and xenophobia dressed up as science. It sickens me.

[jv22222]

From the post you linked to...

"So pattern recognition is a useless heuristic made up by a group of rich white men as a way to quantify something"

If that statement isn't racist, biased, and, well, just quite mean really, then I'm not sure what is.

[zorpner]

I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well, but here it is:

Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power. For this reason alone (let alone all the other good ones), there is no symmetry in these biases (e.g. the false equivalence of misogyny and misandry).

[mcantelon]

>Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race

The popular, and dictionary, definition of "racism" is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races".

[forgottenpass]

I always hesitate to post this on HN, because it almost never goes well

It never goes well because it goes into a corner of academia, takes a relatively new and by no means universally accepted redefinition and decides to not only add that definition to the word "racism" society-wide, but replace the existing definition entirely.

My personal opinion on the terms has gone back and forth so much that I don't even care about this pissing match anymore, but it's become clear to me why people aren't getting on board.

As if redefining instead of just adding a 2nd definition wasn't enough, what it attempts to define is already better known as "institutional racism," a subset of racism (where racism is just racial prejudice). If you don't see a new category being defined, it's hard to see the purpose of splitting these hairs as anything other than to redefine racial-prejudice-minus-power as something without the baggage the term "racism" carries around. It smacks of conversation re-framing through linguistic prescriptivism.

Or, occasionally it is interpreted less charitably. Someone does see a new category being codified, just not the one you want. They see it as a category of below-"racism" racism emerging that gives a pass to expressions of racism from traditionally disadvantaged groups, even in circumstances where the institutional racism isn't at play.

[dragonwriter]

> Racism (sexism/classism/etc) is not about race (sex/class/etc). It's about power.

That's, frankly, bullshit. It about allocating power by race, etc., and is, therefore, necessarily about race (or whatever else defines the -ism in question) and power.

> there is no symmetry in these biases

There is a difference in effect (in a short time window, but see below) between whether the group favored is the currently in-power group or whether its an out-of-power group.

But there is a symmetry in essence. And, furthermore, the long-time-window effect of accepting racism (etc.) from below (or redefining the terms to exclude it) is a reversal in power structure in which the group whose bias has been licensed becomes the power group -- and is unlikely to suddenly renounce the bias that established that position in favor of the formerly-dominant and now subjected group.

[vezzy-fnord]

This is a sly redefinition of racism that largely fails to withstand scrutiny: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

[benihana]

It's official! It's literally not possible to be racist against white men you guys! Tumblr was right all along!

[melindajb]

cry me a river. you don't get to whine about this stuff, when you're the party in power. Work to better it, stop whining, that's what those people tell everyone else.

[vezzy-fnord]

Your post history shows that you are either a good troll or a deluded radical that is the living embodiment of every Tumblr feminist trope.

What motivates this toxic revanchist mindset that every single white man has homogenous and equally distributed power, simply due to being part of a group due to their skin color?

This type of identity politics is no different than Luce Irigaray claiming E = mc^2 is a "sexed equation" and that it privileges the speed of light. It is postmodern, Western-centric and extremist lunacy.

Ultimately though, most distressing is your sociopathy.

[mrbtie]

"you don't get to whine about this stuff, when you're the party in power" ROFLOL You must think of yourself as some sort of vigilante, right?

[reinhardt]

Apparently Big Red found HN: https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/42980...

[thibauts]

Not everybody it out to hurt you, discriminate, or hate you. That being said, immediate reaction / assumptions cannot be treated the same way as thoughtful examination. At all.

[melindajb]

Your assumption that I said that says far more about you than it does me. People who shrug and claim pattern matching instead of being rational and overriding their immediate response are discriminating in a way I find offensive. I believe that is what you are saying in your second paragraph. Our humanity is the supposed to be the part of our brains that allows us to override animal instincts to fight, fuck, steal, and kill without hesitation.

So it's not so much to ask that if you're a white man and you think something crappy about a woman or minority, that you might stop and ask yourself to validate that, or find a better way to explain or phrase it.

[melindajb]

thanks for the downvote! I wear it as a badge of honor.

[Pherdnut]

But oh-so-handy for validating e-mail addresses.

[melindajb]

you get an upvote for funny. well done!

[roflc0ptic]

The word sexism is rather unfortunately overloaded. It can connote intent, but a lot of the social justice-y types use it in a way that specifically does not require any intent. It's specific language about the maintenance of power structures. Something sexist is something that maintains male power. This could be seen as sexist because it's a set of interactions that systematically disempowers women from participating.

[jrs99]

it's not rude at all. I'm a hardcore male knitter and it will always surprise some people when I show up to a meetup for the first time with my yarn and needles. I'm sure it's not mind-blowing, but it's definitely a "Hey, oh, a guy showed up."

The same was true for Bill Gates. If you read his biography, when he was really young, people didn't even shake his hand when they met to talk. They didn't find out he was the CEO until like an hour into the meeting. And when they did, they were surprised.

[wpietri]

> My thought is that it's not because they mean to be rude. It's because they pattern match. I've noticed when folks see the same pattern over and over it's difficult to see outside it.

Most rude people don't mean to be rude. They're just thoughtless. That doesn't make their behavior less rude.

For example, the zillion people who, upon learning I'm a computer guy, bust out their computer questions and put me on the spot to diagnose and possibly fix their issues. Are they just pattern matching? Sure. But are they also being thoughtless and self-centered? Definitely.

The problem isn't the pattern matching. Anything with neurons does that. It's the lack of consideration about how other people will feel.

[melindajb]

The pattern matching itself isn't the problem, indeed. It's the apparent lack of some men, usually white men to override it and take a more charitable view of their fellow human beings.

For some reason those same men cry out for "rational discussion" unless it's about their own behavior, of course. They can somehow override most of their animal instincts to steal, fight, or fuck indiscriminately, but can't somehow find a way to overcome thinking a woman at a trade show booth can't possibly be an engineer.

So we're saying, either the person can overcome that thinking or they can't.

If they can, but choose not to, they're deliberately discriminatory.

If they can't overcome that thinking, we might want to have them institutionalized for anti social behavior, because what other animal instincts are they not able to overcome?

[jacalata]

One of the words you are looking for is 'stereotyping'.

[booruguru]

The thing is...we've been talking about geeks and discrimination for years now. "Ignorance" is no longer a valid excuse.

[malyk]

The pattern matching IS SEXIST! That's the whole issue. Your using gender as a "pattern" to match against.

The point is to try to overcome making that match.

[lmm]

So I'm supposed to what, talk to everyone? Close my eyes while I'm doing it? In the real world I have limited time and I know I'm going to be happier and learn more if I'm talking to people with similar interests. So I make the best judgement I can with the information I have available. And sure, sometimes I'll get it wrong. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to just have no filter.

[melindajb]

No, no, no, no and no. Stop it. Pattern matching isn't science. Stop pretending it is.

https://medium.com/best-thing-i-found-online-today/8178b2794...

To be direct: Pattern recognition is bullshit voodoo pseudo-science masquerading as objectivity and meritocracy. It’s sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, and xenophobia dressed up as science. It sickens me.

[balls187]

> No, no, no, no and no. Stop it.

Nice job in raising the level of discourse here.

[melindajb]

oh because claiming a bullshit voodoo science as argument was so earth shattering? seriously. especially coming from someone with "balls" in the name. read the link. Love it, i'm now not being allowed to reply. I love how it's ok for guys on hacker news to denigrate and insult women and minorities but if we say, look stop it, you're all suddenly begging for rationality. NOTHING about pattern matching is rational. So you have no right to expect rationality as a response.

all the links to reply to any comment are now gone. would you like a screen shot?

[balls187]

> all the links to reply to any comment are now gone. would you like a screen shot?

Hrm...sure it's not that you're trying to reply to a new comment (there is a delay before you can reply)

I understand your point. Unfortunately the way you made it makes you come across as an irrational individual.

https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi+profiling&ie=utf-8&oe=ut...

> especially coming from someone with "balls" in the name

Considering that's my name...

> i'm now not being allowed to reply.

Did someone prevent you from replying? Did your comment get deleted?

No one is preventing you from replying. You disagree with the above commented, I disagreed with how you came across.

> NOTHING about pattern matching is rational. So you have no right to expect rationality as a response.

How so?

Think that it's okay for TSA agents to search a 82 year old women, instead of say me (a dark ass dude who looks like a terrorist)? Should their sampling of passengers should be completely random?

People shouldn't denigrate anyone: women, men, minorities, or majorities.

[melindajb]

Now that I have the access to reply again.

Suggesting that it's ok to accept that automatically thinking a woman at a trade show is not an engineer is simply irrational. We are humans and with that comes the ability to override animal thinking. Dare I say, I expect the person to have that thought to override it, think rationally, and say something other than what most of them do? And is asking for that somehow in and of itself irrational? Look, having heard these bullshit arguments hundreds of times, I am right tired of having them. We've been discussing this issue long enough that the people who keep doing this, need to not be tolerated. We need to stop expecting those without power to always be the ones to take the high road.

Anger is a valid and rational response to continued discrimination. To say otherwise comes dangerously close to tone policing.

[balls187]

> Suggesting that it's ok to accept that automatically thinking a woman at a trade show is not an engineer is simply irrational.

Agreed, mostly. What if it was a women who was dressed provocatively, i.e. a booth babe? Would that change the circumstance.

In the case of the main article, the woman at the trade show WASNT and engineer.

But that's beside the point.

Slight semantics here--I think it's okay to make assumptions. I don't think it's okay to make assumptions and then act upon them as if they're fact. Like, asking a women if she's in HR.

For example: if you saw two guys at a company booth, one guy who was slightly overweight, had a unkept beard, and wore a t-shirt that had the Perl deCSS code, and standing next to him, was someone in dockers, a button up shirt, and had a blackberry, you might make some snap assumptions.

> Anger is a valid and rational response to continued discrimination.

How so? Does it end the discrimination? Does it further your point?

I think being angry is a valid and healthy emotional response, but not a rational one.

[haukilup]

I'm having a hard time determining if you comments are meant to be trolling or not. You see to be adamantly against an opinion the people you're replying to don't exactly hold. You're doing the equivalent of yelling out a boilerplate rant anytime a keyword you've been waiting for pops up.

[melindajb]

Why do you feel the need to determine whether I'm a troll or not?

I'm tired of hearing the same old excuses for discrimination, namely "pattern matching." It's bullshit. It's everywhere on this thread as it so often is when posts about discrimination and harassment reach any level of awareness on Hacker News. And while most of the time I generally ignore it, rolling my eyes and occasionally just become depressed as hell, sometimes I just get fed up and decide to call it out. Then I vent it out and get back to work. I don't care what you label it as, in fact the whole concept of labeling is precisely the issue.

Treat people with respect. That's all any of us want. But when we say that nicely we get ignored. When we say it strongly, we get labeled everything from bitch, to sociopath, to irrational, to whatever. There's no win. So I just say what I think and let the chips fall where they may. Upvote me, downvote me, I honestly do not give a shit.

[antdaddy]

> Upvote me, downvote me, I honestly do not give a shit.

If you really don't care, why even say this?

[Dewie]

> Love it, i'm now not being allowed to reply.

If someone just posted something, there is a cool down period before you can reply. Maybe that was the case.