hacker789

Across all cultures (perhaps across all of history), women are more risk averse.

In fact, feminist activists didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor.

Only then did it become scandalous that young women were choosing different career paths (but interestingly, the fact that young women are earning more than young men and graduating from college in far greater rates than young men isn't scandalous).

Not quite.

One person says, "We deliberately handle women with kid gloves. A under-qualified woman has a better chance than an under-qualified man."

A feminist activist responds, "But you still hire more men! Therefore, it's almost a given that you're biased against women in other ways. Fix it."

The original person says, "Wow. We just can't win with you people."

He's concerned about being misconstrued because feminist activists love bullying people with waves of hateful, outrageously uncharitable, deliberately damaging messages at the slightest trigger.

For example, here's what PG recently said on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/416994260995416064):

Will write about female founders, but traveling all day so it will have to wait. Reserve judgment? Prob too much to hope for, alas.

The responses are typical of feminist activists:

1. > pg translated: "Shut up. All I did in the last decade is not what I believe in, I will graciously explain it to you when I see fit"

2. > Obviously not an important enough issue to deal with now.

3. > please DO NOT write about women founders until you have a better fucking grasp on the issue.

4. > oh don't you even try to equate being a douchebag "startup" founder with being a hacker

The privilege topic has been discussed to death.

If someone were to use "privilege" to mean "unearned benefits for individuals in specific contexts", then no one could have a problem with it. We could talk about:

- female privileges in the workplace

- male privileges in the workplace

- white privileges at university

- black privileges at university

- gay privileges at bars

- straight privileges at bars

- American-born privileges regarding medical care

- Canadian-born privileges regarding medical care

- etc.

Instead, third-wave feminists have transformed the notion of "privilege" into a targeted weapon for belittling and denigrating the specific demographics they deem hostile to their goals.

When a "friendly" demographic does well, it's a result of hard work and determination. For example, when young women earn more than young men, or when young women graduate from college at far higher rates than young men, it's a result of hard work and determination.

Another example: Have you ever seen tptacek complain about the Asian tech problem, the Indian tech problem, or the Jewish tech problem? Nope. Those people worked hard! That is why they're wildly overrepresented. No need to scold them. No need to demand flagellation from them.

But men doing well? White men? Oh god, it's just their privilege. We need to fix this, and we'll know the problem isn't fixed as long as there is any disparity.

If my post came across as a generic "men's rights" post, rather than a direct response to the parent, then I didn't do a good enough job of tying it together.

Western culture's hypersensitivity toward women's issues, combined with its blindness toward men's issues, create an environment in which it's socially acceptable (even socially rewarded) to propose draconian measures that further throw young men under the bus that's carrying young women.

We should aim to help people who are suffering in society, rather than aim to help people with vaginas. And we absolutely shouldn't continue obsessing about leveling evening every single predominately male field without doing something to help the young men who are increasingly being left behind.

It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress women, to pigeonhole them into an impoverished gender role concerned only with housekeeping and child rearing.

It is irrefutable that for generations American society took "affirmative action" to suppress men, to pigeonhole them into an overworked, hyper-stressed, diseased, prematurely fatal gender role concerned only with selfless providing for and protecting the women and children in their lives.

Feminists look at the 0.1% of men at the top of society throughout history, and willfully ignore the 99.9% of men at the bottom. Those men at the top of society are useful for shoring up sympathy for women; those men at the bottom of society are not.

Who wants to, as a woman, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy

What a sophomoric, hand-wavy thing to say. Who wants to, as a man, invest themselves in a career in tech when there is a decent chance your boss will be this guy, who is actually, literally a powerful boss who says bullying things toward men who don't toe the third-wave feminist line:

http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun

Plus, the man you're trying to ridicule is correct, as a recent large study shows beyond all reasonable doubt ("Penn Medicine Brain Imaging Study Helps Explain Different Cognitive Strengths in Men and Women"):

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2013/12/verma/

When in life do men's and women's brains diverge? Not during their youngest, most plastic years. Nope. During the surge of sex hormones in puberty. It doesn't mean men or worse or women are worse. It just means that like all other intelligent species, humans have different psychological tendencies between sexes.

The solution to gender inequality issues is to simply hire women. Hire women and promote women.

This is a terrible idea, unless you only care about ensuring that every company has at least one vagina for every penis. History (and the present) shows us that this sort of widespread coddling is guaranteed to help privileged, connected women at the expense of underprivileged, unconnected men.

Hyper-privileged, connected, powerful men like yourself will have no issues finding a job either way. But young men—who are already out-educated and out-earned by young women—are badly affected, especially those without connections. Considering the lack of personal repercussions, it's little surprise that it's trendy for old, rich men to throw young, poor men under the bus. It's par for the course for history, in fact.

employers tend to treat similar resumes with male versus female names differently.

Why shouldn't they, especially in the world you want?

No, you're describing me, actually.

Everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore externalities that cause discomfort to others.

If Alice performs well at her job, and her company gains a lot of marketshare as a result, she has likely caused discomfort for the employees of her company's competitors. It's frightening to imagine a world in which Alice is forced to stop performing as well because of her competitors' discomfort.

A simpler example: "hapless" is all over this thread, causing discomfort for those who don't want this man thrown in prison. Should "hapless" be forced to stop?

Additionally, everyone is entitled to (and does) ignore public goods that they don't pay for. It's frightening to imagine a world in which we force Alice to pay for her neighbor's renovations, or to pay for a weekly advice newsletter she never signed up for.

People like the man in the article make these value judgments more independently from government policy than most people do. If anything, that is your contention with him, not that he doesn't pay for things he didn't ask for, and not that he sometimes ignores the discomfort caused by his actions.

Many changes/advancements drastically increase opportunities for further changes/advancements.

Technological advancement tends to follow that pattern, and I imagine many evolutionary changes do, too.

The explanation (and subsequent discussion) in your first link is wonderful.

I love that there are nerds tucked away in random corners of the internet, making themselves happy by working on obscure, challenging problems like these.

That dehumanizing attitude is extremely common in first-world "social justice warrior" circles.

They consciously and deliberately use shaming and bullying tactics to intimidate others into silence. They acknowledge this constantly, especially on Twitter when their bullying victims ask why the "social justice warriors" are being so cruel.

Their answers are typically something like, "We need everyone to know that being a fucking asshole like you will mean everyone will mock and hate you."

These activists are quite literally bullies. It's extremely important that we continue to stand up to them.

I use gender-neutral pronouns unless context dictates otherwise, but I want you to consider something.

If a policy (or lack thereof) is correlated with women feeling excluded or intimidated, it doesn't necessarily mean that the policy (or lack thereof) is a bad thing.

If women tend to feel intimidated by eye contact with men with whom they are in competition, it doesn't mean such eye contact should be banned. If women tend to feel feel excluded if the founding members of an organization or club are all men, it doesn't mean men should be forced to find a woman before founding an organization or club.

This community, like most others, has an unspoken bias against third-wave feminist bullies.

Look what happened to the "Atheism Plus" communities. They have been completely taken over by bigoted "social justice warriors" and their activism.

Completely.

Atheism is almost never discussed. And when it is, it is always discussed in the context of third-wave post-modern feminism. Think I'm lying? Take a look at any Atheism Plus community. Any!

Once a community accepts the tenants of post-modern discourse, it's over.

I don't think that's a counter point; it's a long discontinued practice of deliberately discriminating against people of a given race because other people of that race were too successful.

It's not something I support, by the way, in case the sarcasm in my above comment wasn't apparent.

If the banning of CT scans would save just one innocent life, it would be worth it.

Yes, there are too many pesky east-Asians and Indians.

There might be a Jewish problem as well.

In your mind, is it possible for someone to disagree with the article without "exemplifying the problem"?

That's the issue with first-world "social-justice warriors", like the author of the linked opinion piece. If you disagree with their premises on factual grounds, you're labeled as part of the problem. It makes honest discussion impossible.

For example, you completely ignored the point that PG made. You didn't even attempt to address it. You just labeled him as the enemy and went on to make your own point.

He made a good point, but in my mind, he didn't go far enough. Both (American) mathematics and SV are disproportionately dominated by east-Asians and Indians relative to their respective population sizes. Why does everyone ignore this?

There are hugely disproportionately more Indians and East-Asians than there are whites in the Silicon Valley. Why do you think that is?

It all depends on what is meant by "regulate". If the FDA just wants 23andMe to make it clearer to their customers that:

1. Like any screening, their results could be inaccurate.

2. Before making any changes based on their results—aside from eating more healthfully, exercising more, and sleeping better—they really need to talk to a doctor.

... then few people would have a problem with it. And maybe that's all the FDA is trying to do! I don't really know.

Sadly, when an activity or product could result in a bad outcome, certain types of people are incredibly eager to ban (or heavily regulate) it.

Those people don't realize that by doing so, they themselves are actively harming the people who benefit from that activity or product by preventing or heavily limiting their access to it.

Just like we shouldn't ban health discussion boards (and we shouldn't make it illegal to participate in health-related discussions without government-mandated credentials), we shouldn't limit people's freedom to choose services like these. It's wrong.

We just need to make sure the services aren't lying about what they're offering.

Not having a test done could kill people, too.

I wouldn't be surprised if this measure makes the consensual rape kink even more popular.

To answer your question:

How the does this work with consensual kink?

Even the possession of consensual porn will get you locked away, at least according to the article:

Mr Cameron is targeting websites which show videos and images of rape – whether they claim they are ‘simulated’ or not.

(I'm assuming you're using "anti-sexist" to mean "feminist" rather than its literal definition.)

A little over a year ago, there was a lot of third-wave feminist activism here after several "Atheism Plus" communities mentioned Hacker News. Gradually, people started standing up to them, and their activism is not nearly as prominent.

On a side note: If you're curious about "Atheism Plus", it's a set of communities that focus on its members vision of social justice. Interestingly, it's not really about atheism; it's almost never discussed. For example, here's a current snapshot of the front page of their subreddit: http://archive.is/CMcAy

This thread is not the place for a debate about whether life has historically been (or currently is) easier on men than on women.

So I'll simply say that it shows a remarkable lack of empathy and understanding for you to call those desperate men who resort to PUA tactics "powerful". Almost by definition, they are acting from a position of weakness.

I realize it's currently trendy to break the world down into large, tidy, digestible traits (maleness and femaleness in this case), labeling one as "privileged" and the other as "oppressed".

Life's way too complicated for that.

Yeah! It's about empowering socially awkward people who just have trouble holding conversations! That's why it's called "pick up artistry": because you're picking up conversations!

He didn't say the end goal is "picking up conversations". Mindcrime was almost certainly taking offense to the infantilizing attitudes expressed in the quote he included, not to its reference to sex.

For the most part, the end goal is sex, and sometimes it's long-term companionship. There's nothing wrong with either of those.

---

I honestly wonder how far up your _ss your head has to be to completely ignore just how saturated the feminist community is with terms designed to objectify, marginalize, belittle, and disparage specifically men, and just how many of the highest regarded figureheads of the community are throbbing c_nts whose only goal in life is to find a modicum of self worth by pandering to the most cliche stereotype of fragile, vulnerable femininity.

---

See? It's easy to disparage large groups!

I have difficulty comprehending the logic that trusts someone to monitor, assess, and organize a team's work, but doesn't trust them to take responsibility for the performance of the whole team and micromanages their staffing from above.

I hear you.

I imagine Mayer would like to fire those overprotective members of management, but I can't imagine how she could know exactly who they are at this point. This review processes should hopefully help shine a light on some of them.

You're wrong.

Women aren't adults who can be held responsible for their own actions and decisions; they're vulnerable children who need to be protected at every turn.

If you (as a man) visit an Apple Store just to look around, and you walk out with a brand new laptop, you're a customer. You made a decision. Yes, Apple works very hard to maximize conversions, but you're an adult, and it's silly to shame and vilify Apple for "manipulating" a "vulnerable" man into buying their products.

However, if you (as a woman) choose to have sex with a man who reads tips about how to increase his chances of having sex, you're a vulnerable victim of manipulation. That mean, bad predator who took advantage of you needs to be shamed!

Western media is overflowing with tips for women to get what they want from men. And that's okay. :)

But if you're a man, don't you dare read tips about how to get what you want from women. That would be misogynist. You don't hate women, do you, mindcrime?

not reacting particularly well

What makes you say that? He's not the one throwing names around. What would constitute "reacting well" in your book? Agreeing with you?

"Not being well received here"?

A handful of feminists are accusing him of hating women for wanting to be more attractive to women. Nothing's new.

Just because people aren't standing up to a handful of feminist bullies ("fedorable"?) doesn't mean the community here doesn't like him. It just means that don't want to pick a fight.

I feel so uncomfortable because in order to meet the bell curve, I have to tell the employee that they missed when I truly don’t believe it to be the case. [...] More often than I’d like I’m told we are executing a certain way ‘because Marissa said so.’

If you have an underproductive department with overprotective management, layoffs (and negative performance reviews) won't happen as frequently as they should.

Maybe members of management just want to protect their respective fiefdoms. Maybe they have their empathy makes it difficult to lay people off. Maybe they genuinely believe their teams are doing well. Maybe their teams actually are doing well, and exceptionally few layoffs (if any) need to happen.

Regardless, "because Marissa said so" is a perfectly valid answer. There will be collateral damage, but it's likely that she's dealing with some extremely protective, entrenched management who won't negatively review anyone on their teams unless they're forced to.

Edit: The parent comment, which was nearly half an hour old when I saw it, has been edited to remove the reference that I was against men's rights.

My post had no replies when I edited.

I removed that reference because I felt it sounded like I was accusing you of being against men's rights. That wasn't my intention.

Neither is there much of a recognition that while men have problems, it's not a competition and it doesn't mean that women don't also have problems.

Definitely. However, when the solutions that third-wave feminists put forth further disadvantage men in areas like unemployment and education—or, to be more diplomatic, when someone passionate about men's rights feels that way—it's completely reasonable for them to respond with their objections.

The thing is that MRA, here on HN and most other places, are free to submit anything they want any time they want.

Many people who passionately oppose third-wave feminist activism also oppose discussion of politics on HN, period. So they don't consider this to be a platform for their political views unless they're responding to activism already on the front page.

Indeed.

When people feel very strongly about things (a couple of your examples touch upon human rights), and they feel they rarely have a platform to express those views, they'll take any platform they can get.

It's annoying but understandable.

Also keep in mind that it's annoying to see a viewpoint expressed if you disagree with it. When such a viewpoint is expressed, you are predisposed to view them as unwanted contributions to the discussion. I don't believe the parent comment is warranted here, but maybe he wasted a lot of his time trying to improve Wikipedia, and he feels very strongly about this.