[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".

[rada]

The definition of "AIDS" is that it's a disease, and yet what causes it is a virus. Your parent has pointed out the source or racism/sexism/classism/etc, not the end result. Identify the source, cure the disease.

[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.

[hueving]

Don't even bother trying. The people that post the definition you are replying to either willfully ignore the basic logical flaws of their argument or they have been brainwashed and lack the mental fortitude to actually defend what they are saying. You will not get a a meaningful response.

[vezzy-fnord]

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

[zorpner]

From that link: "It is important to push for the understanding that racism is 'prejudice plus power' and therefore people of color cannot be racist against whites in the United States. People of color can be prejudiced against whites but clearly do not have the power as a group to enforce that prejudice."

That's pretty much exactly the case! Thanks for the great quote.

[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.

[melindajb]

Nice try, fake name. I'm none of those things. I said none of these things. But your toxic, anonymous rage and sweeping generalizations? Well, that's pretty much the definition of sociopathy. Way to keep Hacker News productive and constructive!

[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?

[melindajb]

Nope, I'm a normal person who gets upset occasionally, and most of the time doesn't bother. I've seen a lot of this for many, many years, and sometimes, I just feel the need to get involved. Then I get back to work. I wish I was a vigilante, then I could be like Chuck Norris. Who is awesome.

[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.