I guess this doesn't answer my question. What's the ask here? OP suggested this discussion was "incredibly distressing," I'm unclear if anybody is entertaining the notion that a debate among dozens cannot happen because one person wanders in who's distressed by it, or what?
Sorry, I was under the impression that this was a rhetorical question.
Of course she doesn't want the community to censor itself.
She is describing how such discussions are distressing to women (and not merely to herself, as you seem to state). She gives the example of an aspiring programmer stumbling on HN, noticing all the subtle sexism and giving up STEM. Which is precisely the issue that we should be debating.
In short, her point isn't "don't talk about it" but "don't be a bigot about it". Don't talk about it as if women weren't reading the threads. As if amongst boys.
A lot of those threads end up circle-jerking into a "men vs. women" debate while the actual debate should be "what is it in our communities that is driving women away?"
My point in that reply was that she shouldn't be the one blocking those threads, her point of view as a woman is vital in such a debate. It should be us that act more civilized instead.
> while the actual debate should be "what is it in our communities that is driving women away?
Why?
Women aren't, on the whole, passively "driven away". They actively choose other careers that interest them more.
Or why is it that men are "driven away" from veterinary science and early childhood education, while women choose not to go into computer science and mechanical engineering?
I find this the most distressing thing about these discussions: that women in the most progressive, egalitarian nations in space and time are suddenly regarded as passive vessels pushed around by outside forces, rather than as strong, active shapers of their own destinies.
Novia (the OP of this comments thread) already started a career in STEM and "wanted to study math [her] whole life".
With those two facts, she should be the perfect candidate. However, she is still feeling pushed away.
She actively chose STEM and is put in such situations that she has to (as you recommended yourself) block out entire topics simply to avoid reading distressful and distasteful comments.
It wouldn't be too bad if our community only acted like that online and in specific threads. But that isn't the case.
Male "elitism" and subtle sexism is present in the day to day life of female developers.
Imagine how tiring it would be if wherever you went, people singled you out because you were nerdy or geeky. You wouldn't want to keep working in that field at all.
But why is that? Isn't what is driving these concerns these never-ending "women in STEM" discussions that paint the field in a very negative light?
If I were entering a field an constantly hearing how horrible it is, I would also be concerned.
> distressful and distasteful comments.
Why are comments that talk about distributions of preferences being a probable cause distressing? What is "distasteful" about them?
Why is it distressing/distasteful to say 'hey, the field you have chosen to enter is actually not full of horrible people that will treat you badly because you are a woman'? In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men? How is that horrible?
To me, the consistent bombardment of claims that the field is horrible would be a much larger deterrent.
> In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men?
That's one of the problems. Nobody wants to be the special kid. The one you invite to all the meetings to be a token. The one who can't even be certain if their achievements are worthwhile or simply artificially inflated.
Being insincerely friendlier to women in a professional environment is, in fact, sexism. It is a form of gender prejudice and gender bias.
> I'm unclear if anybody is entertaining the notion that a debate among dozens cannot happen because one person wanders in who's distressed by it, or what?
The problem is not with having a debate; the problem is the sheer level of hostility present in this thread.
What if we replaced the word "hostility" with "frustration?" Hostility places blame, but I sense frustration all around by people who all think they're standing up for an important cause (and both sides are).
Also, to clarify, I don't think people in this thread are frustrated at/by women. There's no "hostility" there. You may be seeing frustration at a social-justice-movement that they think either A) goes too far or B) debates unfairly by making it "un-pc" to make certain points they consider important to the debate.
If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.
> What if we replaced the word "hostility" with "frustration?"
I specifically meant hostility, not frustration; no need to beat about the bush. Frustration expresses itself differently. It's not about standing up for a cause, it's an attempt at aggressively controlling the debate.
> If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.
I had already stated that the problem is not with having the debate, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up again. The problem is with the form of the debate.
