I have the ability to tell the difference when someone is treating me a certain way because I am a newbie or because I am a woman.

It's incredibly insulting that every time this is brought up it's written off as women not understanding basic human interaction.

But that's the whole point: it's hard to tell! Of course the classification is easy at the end points (super helpful guy vs total arrogant jerk) but towards the mean the probability of false alarm is much larger. Geeks are a diverse bunch, it may just be that the guy is from another country where interactions are different or it may be just that he's a bit awkward initially because he does not interact with women daily (it happens).

I think the correct approach is to give them the benefit of doubt for a while before labeling them as dudes or whatever. Isn't that the golden rule?

I am an awkward person with social anxiety. The idea that women like myself aren't already doing that is part of the absurdity.

I don't think it stems from ignorance so much as forced, willful ignorance to reinforce your own cognitive biases.

It borders on delusion if you get offended by a friendly, non-threatening gesture in a cooperative environment.

If I was looking for something to get offended about I wouldn't hide behind male usernames on Stackoverflow, my local user groups, Hackernews (obviously not this account) and Github to avoid conflict. I just want to be a normal part of tech communities, on and offline.

It's absurd that you can write off the large portion of women who say there's a problem because you don't want to examine you're own internal biases.

Clearly, not all women are looking for something to be outraged about. However, there is a vocal minority that loudly takes offense at friendly gestures, like in this particular instance. That's what I take issue with.

> If I was looking for something to get offended about I wouldn't hide behind male usernames on Stackoverflow, my local user groups, Hackernews (obviously not this account) and Github to avoid conflict. I just want to be a normal part of tech communities, on and offline.

That's more of a consequence of the erosion of anonymity in the Internet, than you being a woman.

> It's absurd that you can write off the large portion of women who say there's a problem because you don't want to examine you're own internal biases.

Large portion of women according to whom? I'm not writing off anybody either, I'm asking people to critically examine a concept and judge for themselves. I think you ought to think for yourself a little bit more, onee-sama.

No it's a consequence of men seeking out my social profiles on other sites and offering to give me "extra help". Also dick pics.

>I'm asking people to critically examine a concept and judge for themselves

That's exactly what you're being asked to do. Women in the spaces, including myself, aren't looking for things to be angry about, we are looking for acceptance and the ability to enjoy our hobbies/passions and professions in peace. Insisting that everything is just a misunderstood friendly gesture is ridiculous and part of the larger culture that make certain groups of people feel unwelcome in tech.

And once again, why do you think that women haven't already examined this and realized that the interactions they have in certain environments are something beyond needing a little understanding? It's not like women walking into hackerspaces haven't been around nerdy, awkward men before- half of them are nerdy, awkward women.

Implying there's a simple solution that is summed up as "women don't understand!" is ridiculous.

Are you really suggesting that because these women have a hard time integrating in communal environments, that it means all women have problems integrating?

Constantly being irritated with how everyone interacts with you is personality trait, found in any race, gender, orientation, or identity. It's not genetic. I'm not sure why you're saying these people speak for all women.

On the other side, I am maybe a bit too conscious about these things. Sometimes it is very hard to judge someones skill level. There are a lot of people who somehow manage as programmers without knowing even the most basic things. I find it often hard to explain these basic things to them without seeming like an arrogant showoff.

When these things are brought up it's not to say only women have to deal with these things- we get to deal with all the regular bullshit and a little extra.

Like a an extra layer on a bullshit cake.

What does it mean to bring it up in the context of this article, other than merge all people with skin spectral signature falling in a cluster. But then there's this idea: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is.... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not "white", I'm not a "dude" and I hate to be labeled as such, probably as much as these people hate to be treated as clueless just because they are women. Unfortunately, it's a sad fact that people who are on the receiving end of abuse usually practice it themselves when they get a chance.

So... the author claims she doesn't like any special treatment that women sometimes get... but also doesn't want to be like a common, boring, ordinary "white dude"?

For instance, if a man tells his barber "just a regular cut", he may be described as a "dude". On the other hand, if he shaves his hair into a mohawk and dyes it hot-pink, he loses his dudehood and becomes an individual.

Whenever you hear somebody use the word "dude" in a tone that makes it sound disparaging, what they are basically telling you is "I am bothered by my perception that this man conforms."

But why keep the discussion philosophical, after all a word's meaning is its use, right? As a simplistic experiment google "geek dude" and "geek" and look at the image results to try to figure out what the extra dude adds.

Stereotypes, basically. Visuals/fashion play a very large role, as you can see in those google queries.

How they interact with others also is a factor. In my experience, shy people are less likely to be considered "dudes", while extroverts are much more likely to get the label.

Here's one such example I've personally witnessed:

"Maybe you should consider that your life choices have consequences."

"Is that a threat? Because I can go get the police right now."

Then maybe we should defer to the people directly involved. I mean, look. If these women say they feel uncomfortable at male-dominated hackerspaces, is it really such a stretch to believe that it's becuase they actually feel uncomfortable at male-dominated hackerspaces?

There's no harm here. Let them hack where they want to. Our job as the dominant members of the subculture is just to shut up about it and not be thin-skinned nutjobs.

No matter how its implemented or who implements it, its always ugly, and frankly not very polite.

I think everyone agrees no matter how uncouth and uncivilized a tourist acts, its not acceptable for the local thugs to intimidate the tourists, two wrongs never make a right. That has to be tempered with endless propaganda of "I visited Mexico, drank the water and got the runs, now everyone must feel sorry for me and join me in the two minutes hate for Mexico" isn't frankly an interesting story. No, I don't have to care.

Another excellent example is how do people respond when they go to the zoo and the elephant exhibit is overflowing with stinky poo? Whats most likely to result in the long run in non-smelly elephant exhibit? Compare and contrast with what feels better on the internet, whats a trendy and popular behavior to lash back?

Also gay guys usually don't just hit on everyone because at least they usually have the grace to know when it's appropriate and when it's not and also when it might be reciprocal (wanted) and when not.

Well, then I imagine hack spaces a bit differently. For me, anything I do in my free time isn't work, it's fun. Socializing. And a natural part of socializing is forming relationships. Friendships, romantic relationships, ... In any case, I'd consider it much preferable to try and meet a soulmate at a common hobby, rather than at a bar. Applies to everyone, not just women, of course.

> Also gay guys usually don't just hit on everyone because at least they usually have the grace to know when it's appropriate and when it's not and also when it might be reciprocal (wanted) and when not.

That's quite a generalization, a pretty offensive at that. Obviously, straight guys are all scary and creepy, while gay guys are nice and tender and soft!

Small correction: person involved. You rarely get to hear the others' opinion or viewpoint on the matter.

Which brings us back to "they're possibly interpreting a friendly tone as a condescending tone". Of course they'll feel unsafe when they see danger everywhere because they've conditioned themselves to be victims and everyone else a possible aggressor. Or maybe the other person is an asshole and they are 100% verified. Without seeing it happen or having an unbiased viewpoint there is no way to know for sure.

Deferring to a possibly biased viewpoint is not the answer. Here's why:

I keep the door open for absolutely everyone if they're within 8-10ft of the door without discrimination of age, sex, gender, religion, sexual orientation, height, weight, body shape, deformities, mental ability, physical ability, which direction they are walking, whether they are wearing socks with sandals or slippers, if they are accompanied by someone else or alone, or any other reason you could possibly think of to discriminate against holding the door open for someone.

All it takes is a single woman thinking I'm being chivalrous (which is now "benevolent sexism") to hate me for all of eternity because I'm a sexist misogynist because I happened to hold the door open for her and her cognitive bias and victim mentality instantly believes I only held the door open for her because she's a woman!

Would you accept her biased and negative viewpoint at face value? Rhetorical question: you've already stated your belief that we should defer to the person involved. Which turns her into a victim and me into a sexist. For no reason

Now, I could stop holding doors open for everyone, but I know I would eventually get flak for not holding a door open for a woman and she'll assume I didn't hold the door open for her because of her gender.

I'll await an article in coming years with the following complaint:

"This hackerspace is unfriendly, nobody is willing to help me or share information. People keep to themselves and don't socialize at all. Can't they see I'm having troubles soldering these wires together? Its no wonder women don't want to be here. Everyone's a coldhearted asshole."

On the internet sometimes it feels pretty even though...

Point being, a person telling a story several times removed probably shouldn't be treated as The Source Of Revealed Truth. There's too much opportunity for reinterpretation and slanting, accidental or otherwise.