My feeling is that if you really wanted the author to improve, you would try to connect personally, establish trust and then talk to them privately about ways you feel they could improve their writing. And maybe you aren't comfortable reaching out privately because it's a woman, so that could go sideways (assuming you are male, which I don't actually know). Let me assure you that if you have good intentions, publicly dogging someone because you aren't comfortable reaching out privately is not a good substitute.
Seeing this comment at the top of the page on the highest ranked post on the HN front page for the only woman programmer that I am personally aware of who regularly makes the front page really feels like a kick in the gut and looks like sexist garbage. And I would like to think better of HN than that.
This is the Internet, where you take whatever feedback you get with the appropriate grain of salt and either choose to improve or not. Most people on the public venues on the Internet - forums, blogs, comments, essays - are not looking to build relationships or establish trust. (There are some exceptions - I've made some great friendships with Internet friends - but they're usually more private niche forums than blogs or other publications with a wide readership.) They're looking to get their opinion out there, build a readership, perhaps influence public discourse, and maybe get some feedback on their ideas.
I've seen similar comments leveled at PG [1] and Zed Shaw [2], so I don't think it's just sexism.
b) not the primary conversation around these two authors
Look to Linus Torvalds for a male example where delivery rather than content is often the primary conversation. That is how egregious the delivery must be for a male to get the tone police called on them
You may have something there. I went looking for the HN comments on Dabblers and Blowhards [1] (which, IMHO, is even more egregiously sanctimonious than Rachel's essay), but the top comment there was responding to content rather than tone. Only the 3 bottom-most comments remarked on tone.
I don't consider Linus Torvalds that vitriolic, BTW. Most of the time when he's angry he's trying to make a point. I think of Erik Naggum [2] or Poul Henning-Kemp when it comes to real vitriol on the Internet.
People have valid criticisms of Linus's delivery, but the content is often good. I tend to remember some of the technical arguments in those rants years after the fact, and cite them.
Keep in mind he did create the Linux kernel and git, so even if he delivers them inexpertly, even on a bad day, he has some technical insight.
All that said: I agree there is some gender bias showing up on this thread.
Oh, of course! If Linus wasn't special nobody would tolerate his style. Women have to be special for society to tolerate sarcasm from them. I'm unsure how old I'll be before a woman like Linus will be recognized rather than shoved aside.
Thank you for your many excellent comments in this discussion. You fought the good fight. You basically won in that this thread long ago ceased being at the top of the page.
Take your winnings and go home. Linus is not above social censure. His team reined him in not hugely long ago and the comment you are hissing at agrees with your larger point that there's some gender bias happening here and was uncommonly reasonable and evenhanded. I upvoted it.
I'm trying to be supportive. I'm trying to tell you "You've done enough. Relax. Take a break. Feel okay about how this went down."
I mean if your mom is dying of cancer or something and screaming at internet strangers is good distraction from more serious problems, cool. Don't let me stop you.
But if the point was "Doreen is right: this thread shouldn't be at the top of the page!" well, it's not anymore. Job well done. Have a cold brew or whatever and feel okay about it.
I'm not sure why my comment is interpreted as hissing/criticism. It was intended as elaboration and agreement. Oh well, people seem to have not liked it so I'll reconsider those types of posts in the future
I think it's an excellent point that a woman with equivalent chops as Linus is less likely to be recognized for it. So I am glad you replied. Thank you.
In part because of the larger context. In part because it sounds like sarcasm, not like you are genuinely agreeing that Linus actually deserves special treatment because of his stature.
I've defended Linus once or twice. I'm also glad he chose to take some time off and rethink things.
I can't think of any women we give similar accommodation to. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But the reality is that Linus is in a league all his own. It just sounds catty to make comparisons to him in that fashion.
I imagine if we genuinely had a "female Einstein," she would be pretty unique and would carve out her own unique relationship to the world at large.
Interesting. I suppose it can be read that way and I'll try to be more clear in the future.
My point is that we do have examples of female excellence, but almost invariably they are not uncouth. It seems more likely to me that the uncouth ones are silenced than that only male excellence can come in a brusque box
Janet Reno used to refer to herself as an awkward old maid to acknowledge her lack of smoothness and more or less dismiss such criticisms. Depending on your age, that might be before your time.
I'm short of sleep. I really don't desire to continue this discussion. I only spoke up because you seemed really frustrated and I wanted you to feel okay about how things went and that's apparently not your takeaway at all from my comment.
If you really want to shut me down and make me look like an absolute fool, you could list off the ten other women programmers who routinely hit the front page of HN that silly, pathetic little ole me completely missed.
I'm not getting into this argument about how it's not sexism because (bs example pretending men and women get treated exactly alike when everyone knows that's absolutely not true).
It's not about "wanting the author to improve". People are free to write on their own personal blog with as much snark as they like, in whatever style they prefer.
However, what seems to have happened here is that a bunch of folks are upvoting this link to the top of HN because of who the author is.
Meanwhile, other HN readers find this particular post to be a waste of time because, frankly, the content of the post itself is not particularly interesting or useful for most HN readers. Other posts[1][2] by this author have been much better suited for the top of HN, for example
I think that kinda hits the nail on the head. For a lot of people on HN the information being presented in the posts isn't new or particularly insightful. So to read the information presented in a tone where the author believes they are the only ones with the "true knowledge" can be very off-putting.
But of course there are other people that may get more out of it and not have a negative reaction to it.
I agree that the previous post was not constructive or effective, but there's nothing sexist about what they said. It's just someone broadcasting critical opinion.
Policing tone is far more prevalent when the speaker is a woman. Perhaps (I'm doubtful) this feedback would be given to a very well known male speaker, but it would not have been the top comment here.
Criticism is a staple of any human discussion/forum. It's not even feedback, it's just complaining about TFA. Sometimes the top comment on HN is someone complaining about the font-color of the blog post. Let's not lose our minds here.
Seems weird to get worked up over spotting a complaint on HN just because a woman wrote TFA. And btw, most complaints on HN are leveled at men simply because men populate this forum and tech more than women. Does that mean this forum hate men? Why is it assumed men can handle it but women can't?
I have to wonder how many women are turned off by the idea that they need to be babied like this and can't take generic online criticism. Or the suggestion that criticism was only leveled at them because they are women. It sure reeks, to me.
Having different standards for different speakers is exactly what you're doing.
Criticizing how a message is delivered is standard HN criticism. Especially the sort of "everyone is smart except for me" tone of TFA. I myself criticize commenters here for that as it's something I can't stand, either.
Why would you think it's something we only see leveled at women here? And, according to what? And, yes, you're then infantilizing women when OP does receive that criticism. I think your heart is in the right place, but you're doing exactly what you think you're condemning.
I don't think this type of criticism is only leveled at women. I think it is
a) much more likely to happen for much softer offenses
b) much more likely to become the primary conversation rather than an aside buried three levels deep in the comments
Perhaps in this instance Rachel's rhetoric was so off-putting that it really deserved top billing for conversation/criticism here. But that doesn't ring true for me, and I sincerely doubt the conversation/top post would be the same if instead written by e.g. Carmack
It's a good rant, but it's still a rant. Don't make it to something it's not, plenty of rants get harsher critiques and or don't receive that much up-votes.
There are few blog posts that make it to the front page of hacker news that don't draw sharp criticism in the comments and that criticism is quite often the top comment.
> “When a woman says it, it doesn’t sound as crazy,” said Maria Guadalupe, a professor at France’s INSEAD Business school and a co-creator with Joe Salvatore, clinical associate professor of educational theatre at New York University’s Steinhardt School, of the play.
Hmmm.
Is your conclusion based on actors reading off lines, or real life tone policing?
Maybe if it's a "natural experiment" it could be that women know they'll be held to a more tolerant standard (by most people) so they can get away with being a bit ruder. Or maybe they don't know the standard is more tolerant for women (they might even think they're being oppressed) but know where the line is where a crowd will turn against them (like most people do), and that line happens to allow them to be a little ruder.
Interesting experiment! I wasn't aware of it. I think it's difficult to extrapolate results, but I definitely have different takeaways than you.
1) The smiling aspect is explained (for me) by society pushing women to constantly smile, but not men. The amount we expect men and women to smile is different and when they violate those norms they're either a bitch (women for too little) or fake (men for too much).
I'm not sure how to interpret the tone aspect, and it's super interesting! It definitely flies in the face of multitudes of studies showing the reverse. I'm inclined to believe the studies which are really quite simple e.g. have people grade a short essay where the only difference between groups is the essay author's name.
I'd be interesting to get the sentiment on Torvold's history of blog posts that make hacker news. Willing to bet my paycheck that his sarcastic and ranty tone was loved.
What you're saying with this post and the one below is that criticizing a woman (even in a situation where women are underrepresented) is sexist. This is obviously not true and if you believe the criticism is unwarranted then you should make your own criticism based on those points.
That's not what I'm saying at all and it's dumbfounding to me that I am getting such a pile on to try to shut me up by probably all men trying to claim there's no sexism here.
My framing actually assumes positive intent gone wrong and suggests that if there is positive intent, this is not a best practice.
Entire audience hears "Some whiny bitch reading in sexism where there is none and that needs to be shut down cuz reasons."
And therein lies the problem.
But I promised myself I wasn't going to be dragged into some shitshow. I knew no matter how carefully I worded it, it was likely to get ugly pushback and not get good faith engagement.
DoreenMichele is actually much less ideological than most. Maybe it's not obvious from this thread, but those of us who have read her in that past know that her thoughts on these topics are actually unpredictable (and in particular, not at all anti-men). That's quite unusual. I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.
Much less ideological than most what? Most women who call attention to them being women on the Internet? Or just most people who post interesting technical stuff online?
Than most people who comment about gender issues on the internet. I find that once you have a few bits of information, you can nearly always predict where someone is going to come down on such matters. It's not common to run into someone who's less predictable that way.
Wholeheartedly agree with this. I expected to see the parent comment, but I'm really sad to see it at the top. Of course that's not the commenters fault per se; it's clearly a very common opinion people are happy/eager to communicate rather than be ashamed of (even if so mildly as to prefer not to have it in their upvote collection).
Seeing this comment at the top of the page on the highest ranked post on the HN front page for the only woman programmer that I am personally aware of who regularly makes the front page really feels like a kick in the gut and looks like sexist garbage. And I would like to think better of HN than that.