[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.

[ipince]

> 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.

I think the point here is that even if you (internally) make those assumptions, you shouldn't externalize them. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.

[balls187]

Obviously my analogy breaks down--assuming someone with a nerdy shirt might be technical isn't nearly as offensive as assuming someone isn't technical because they're a woman.

Though I agree with you. "Better for others to think you're an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[melindajb]

Working backwards: Throwing around the word rational on hacker news is a bit misleading, don't you think? The original comments reek of irrationality and bias. Also, "irrational" is a word men love to throw at women when they disagree with what they say. That's typically called "tone policing" but I'm not going to assign you that label at the moment.

Regarding the two men, as I've said repeatedly on this thread, it's not the assumptions I'm making, it's the actions I take as a result. What I might do is look at both of them, for example, and say, "Who's the right person to talk to me about your APIs?"

Now regarding your question vis a vis the booth babe: booth babes are a terrible invention. they are a huge part of the problem. But I'll ask it this way: wouldn't you rather be known as a man who treats a booth babe like an engineer, than the douchebag who treats an engineer like a booth babe?

In general, when it comes to women (ahem and all other humans too) you're much more likely to get along with them if you treat them as if they have brains first.

[balls187]

> "irrational" is a word men love to throw at women when they disagree with what they say. That's typically called "tone policing" but I'm not going to assign you that label at the moment.

Fair enough, I understand what you are getting at with labeling. When I say that, however it has nothing to do with you being a woman, and more to do with my fascination with irrational behavior in humans (as described by economists), and formal reasoning.

> wouldn't you rather be known as a man who treats a booth babe like an engineer, than the douchebag who treats an engineer like a booth babe?

Boom. Headshot.