Sketch 3.7 released - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sketchapp.com/sketch-3-7-and-new-symbols-d833a5be4027#.q5rmmbk2j <comment><USER2> I've been using Sketch for over a year now, and though it's been a valuable tool (and the integration with Framer is wonderful) it continues to be plagued by bugs and crashes in even mundane daily use. They proudly announce new features while ignoring the toll these issues take on the designers who depend on their software. I'm posting this in the hope that they'll acknowledge and address some of these issues quickly.

Here are screen grabs of just a few of the most obvious bugs I've encountered recently: [https://twitter.com/sboak/status/651518759690108928](https://twitter.com/sboak/status/651518759690108928) [https://twitter.com/sboak/status/704447216191078400](https://twitter.com/sboak/status/704447216191078400) [https://twitter.com/sboak/status/676568026020372481](https://twitter.com/sboak/status/676568026020372481) [https://twitter.com/sboak/status/664540876606017536](https://twitter.com/sboak/status/664540876606017536) [https://twitter.com/sboak/status/651897512538693632](https://twitter.com/sboak/status/651897512538693632)

<comment><USER3> Hear, hear. And with the introduction of Adobe XD, Sketch has a rapidly closing window to eliminate the worst bugs.

In the last release, I was plagued by one where undo didn't work. Not only did it not work, it randomly shifted layers around the artboard or introduced other glitches into my work. I can't think of many actions that are more automatic than hitting undo — when that essential safety net becomes destructive, it's devastating.

Hopefully 3.7 introduces much-needed stability. At the moment, Adobe XD is still new enough that it won't cause a mass exodus. No layers, for example. But a year from now, either Sketch will have worked incredibly hard to retain the users who stayed because there was no alternative, or XD will have matured and eaten their lunch.

<comment><USER4> Eh...Not really. Have you ever opened an Adobe application up on your machine? The next time you do be sure to fire up Activity Monitor and see your CPU light up. I wouldn't touch another Adobe app with a 10ft pole so long as it requires any interaction with CC, and I know many designers in the same boat.

<comment><USER5> Sorry to hear that @ryanSrich. We built Adobe XD from the ground up, with a brand new (and fast) rendering engine. You can have hundreds of artboards with no issues whatsoever. Let us know what you think if you have a chance. Thanks, @demianborba

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Feeble reminder that Sketch is yet another graphics/drawing app pressed into UI design service rather than being specially built for that purpose. I use Antetype for high fidelity mockups: [http://antetype.com/](http://antetype.com/)

<comment><USER7> Wow, surprised I've never heard of Antetype. The auto-layout looks intriguing: is it based around the box model?

<comment><USER8> I'm an Antetype user from day one, it came out before flexbox (I assume that's what you mean) but behaves in a very similar way except for a couple small minor details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a joy to see so many newer, lighter weight but fully featured OSX apps replace the bloated Adobe software suite (eg. sketch, affinity photo, etc.)

Now will someone please, please make a fully featured spreadsheet alternative to Excel on Mac? All I want is to be able to use the alt key ribbon shortcuts...

<comment><USER10> Isn't that what Numbers is? And it's terrible if you know Excel. Plus Office is only like $10 a month now.

Edit: Meant Numbers, said Sheets.

<comment><USER9> Sheets is definitely usable but it's a bit light on functionality. I'm using the new Excel for Mac right now and it's just very slow and buggy. Also, the aforementioned alt-key shortcut is absent in the Mac version. Not having these shortcuts literally adds hours to my workday.

I'd probably pay 300-400 dollars for an Excel alternative with full keyboard shortcuts.

<comment><USER11> And you've tried Mac Numbers ([http://www.apple.com/mac/numbers/](http://www.apple.com/mac/numbers/)) right?

<comment><USER9> I tried it many years ago and it was lacking features like pivot tables and scripting. Overall, I got the impression that numbers was more consumer than professional oriented. Haven't used it recently though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A simple prototype system via symbols. Nice, but still not as simple as they claim. I wonder how long until these tool companies actually consider more programming power; e.g. as in Bret Victor's Drawing Dynamic Visualizations ([http://worrydream.com/DrawingDynamicVisualizationsTalkAddend...](http://worrydream.com/DrawingDynamicVisualizationsTalkAddendum/)).

<comment><USER13> It would be amazing to have a vector graphics editor that has an underlying editable code representation. One of the major pain points of graphics software today is the assumption that your work is destructive; Illustrator (and probably others) allow you to make non-destructive edits using Pathfinder and such, but it quickly becomes a massive pain once you're more than a few layers deep. I'd love to be able to define complex relationships between shapes and attributes in code and then jump back to WYSIWYG mode to work out the details. It's quite a complex problem to put both modes on equal footing, however.

<comment><USER14> Look at the contents of a .SVG file.

<comment><USER13> I think Gimp might actually allow you to make live SVG edits, but I don't think you can have variables or loops in SVG. You'd need a scripting language plus a higher-level interface along the lines of Core Graphics (UIBezierPath).

<comment><USER14> My point is that you can work on .SVG from a program; it's a simple text format. It's declarative, not executable. You don't want to have a Turing- complete executable graphics representation; it's too hard to edit. Postscript and PDF are executable representations, and editing either does not work well.

Also, if it's executable, someone will write an exploit in it.

<comment><USER13> Fine, but what if I need to do something like: create a shape, make 5 instances of it (all progressively offset, translated, and rotated), and give each one a different color and outline — all while still keeping the original shape editable? What if I have a polygon with a child polygon that needs to have the same angle on one of its sides as its parent? What if I want to give the shadows in different parts of my file the same opacity and color? What if I want to define the relationship between an object's width and the thickness of its borders? I run into these sort of problems all the time. Illustrator almost gets there with its non-destructive effects, but it's not enough. Doing it using code alone is awful, since these sorts of problems tend to be small (but essential) parts of a project, and I need the GUI for the rest.

A lot of vector art already runs as a program; it just happens to run in the artist's head, and requires far too much effort to update. There ought to be a general solution.

<comment><USER15> That's kinda how SVG works if I remember correctly. You can define templates that cab ber instantiated multiple times, with optional transformations.

It's just not easy to do. If you want easy, you should take a look at [http://framerjs.com/](http://framerjs.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Of all the weird usability quirks Sketch has held onto over the past few years, the automatic propagation of changes from one instance of an applied text or object style to all other instances was probably the most maddening. So it's great to see that finally resolved in 3.7 with manual style sync.

Next on my Sketch usability wish list: the ability to set the fill or stroke on a group instead of having to go in and manually select each of its objects.

<comment><USER16> Yes, this issue alone was a complete blocker in my opinion, thank goodness it's been resolved. 100+ page documents could be destroyed in one simple action of pasting a styled text into a box with a pre-existing style assigned. (It was irreversible via an undo).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I recently bought a Wacom Bamboo Spark (basically lets you take notes on regular paper and digitizes that). I only used it for note taking so far. Does anyone use a similar device for prototyping apps (with Sketch but I'll take other suggestions). Should work fine in theory as it can export to image formats, right?

Usecase I'm dreaming of: Have a piece of paper with the exact dimensions of my target device, scribble down a layout, have it digitized via the Spark and then get it on the device and make stuff clickable and link pages. Very basic setup for a click prototype. Looking for a decent setup for this...I've played around with "upload page=image, make areas clickable and link pages" before and it was rather painful.

All suggestions welcome. I can scribble down stuff on paper acceptably well. Actually showing it to people on device and have simple clickflow interactions would be pretty valuable. Especially if it's quick and can be done onsite :)

<comment><USER18> Have you tried Invision?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is it just me, or are more and more companies starting to use Medium via a subdomain on their site as their official blog?

There's nothing inherently wrong with Sketch's (and others') approach, I just think it's a little odd to choose something unbrandable for a company blog...

<comment><USER20> In many cases it probably is a better business decision than standing up and maintaining a branded blog that only gets updated once or twice a month, tops.

Medium's content editor is nice and simple to use, too.

If it's a busines priority to generate a lot of quality content, I agree with you, a branded offering is probably better, if only for the ability to keep control of the content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really dislike how fonts render in Sketch. There used to be a option to sub- pixel anti-alias fonts but they removed it for "performance reasons, and improved consistency with mobile platforms".

<comment><USER22> Out of curiosity, what platform do you design for? I often make designs for web and mobile web, and I want my text to look the same in my design tool as it does on the platform I'm designing for. Since mobile devices don't support sub-pixel antialiasing, I don't want it enabled in my design tool either.

<comment><USER21> I do design for websites and web applications. Mobile is a consideration of course but mostly desktop oriented.

I understand not everyone wants it but that was the beauty of having it as an __option __. Now it 's just gone and those of us who do want it can't use it. Personally I never had a performance problem with it (plus it was off by default) so I was (and still am) very annoyed at it being removed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Having overrides for text and images in the inspector is amazing. And what they're doing with automatically shifting nearby elements to text is an awesome touch ([https://cdn- images-2.medium.com/max/1600/1*nXORHhDfi1ZiscIUi...](https://cdn- images-2.medium.com/max/1600/1*nXORHhDfi1ZiscIUiU9M4A.gif))

I wonder if future versions will have auto-sizing for symbols so that buttons can expand in size dynamically.

</comment><comment><USER24> I finally gave up on Flash 5[1] and started using Sketch. I am a front-end developer and needed a lightweight tool for occasional design tweaks or side- projects.

[1] Yes I know it's not the primary use-case of Flash, but it was a great tool and had almost all the features Sketch has.

</comment><comment><USER25> Does anyone have any idea of how many customers sketch has? Or even similar products like balsamiq?

</comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone recommend any solid resources for learning to use Sketch?

<comment><USER27> I'm currently trying to learn sketch and I'm starting with this youtube playlist [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLnpHn493BHE6UIsdKYlS...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLnpHn493BHE6UIsdKYlS5zu- ZYvx22CS)

<comment><USER24> This playlist is what I used to learn Sketch too, quite good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 3.7 release has definitely slowed everything to a crawl for me. Organizing Icons is totally impractical and my workflow is all messed up.

</comment><comment><USER29> Sketch is really nice from what I've seen from it. Does anyone know if there is anything like it which is Linux compatible?

<comment><USER30> Inkscape is the premier Linux vector application ([https://inkscape.org/en/](https://inkscape.org/en/)).

I prefer Creature House Expression running in WINE on Linux/Mac. It's old, but awesome; at the time, it was a serious competitor to Illustrator. Brilliant interface, innovative drawing features, great manual. Free download: [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=312...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/download/details.aspx?id=31249)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Correct me if I'm wrong: Sketch to mobile app is just what Photoshop did (does?) to Web design right? I mean, last time we used to draw websites in Photoshop, "slice" it and slap into HTML. We stop doing that because (I think) people just prefer to code html directly. What is the utility of Sketch then? Can't you just use UI designer from XCode/Android Studio? (Note: I'm talking from Android dev perspective)

<comment><USER32> It's a dedicated tool for designing layout. You're not going to do the same thing you used to do with photoshop and websites.

Not to mention that, at least on the Android side, their UI designer is absolutely atrocious. Like, to the point where a company like Google should be utterly mortified that they let something out that was that bad, and the developers of it probably should commit seppuku in order to preserve the honor of their families.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> No signs of a windows version yet :(

<comment> ryan-allen Adobe are moving in to the space with a new product, I have a feeling it might be a hit.

<comment><USER34> Fireworks (originaly from Macromedia) was this kind of product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can anyone suggest an equivalent tool for Android that you've used in production?

<comment><USER30> Android is a mobile operating system. Even if an equivalent graphics app exists (unlikely), it will rarely (if _ever_ ) be used in serious production...

<comment><USER35> But in the Sketch's product video they connect the desktop app with an iPhone and show live update. Here is the Sketch's video [https://youtu.be/YdIeiCyKwpI?t=33s](https://youtu.be/YdIeiCyKwpI?t=33s)

Why there won't be anything like that for Android devices?

Update : I misunderstood the purpose of the software. I was only asking Sketch's iOS mirroring feature.</comment></comment></comment>


The Philippine startup scene: Asia's best kept secret? - <AUTHOR> http://sgentrepreneurs.com/commentary/2012/07/11/the-philippine-startup-scene-asias-best-kept-secret/

<comment><USER2> Yes! Love it. I'm actually producing a book about the Entrepreneur's Guide to the Philippines : <http://woodegg.com/ph>

If anyone's interested, or wants to contribute, or has a business they want profiled in the book, please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER3> Site needs a mailing list so I can be informed when it's released! :)

<comment><USER4> Agreed. And please add me to the list!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "One cause of this problem is an outdated curriculum that doesn't correspond to the needs of the industry. The academic sector has not been agile enough to meet the human resource needs of tech startups"

...or the top developers were already pirated by big corporations in Singapore and other countries. For example, there's a shortage of senior .Net developers in the Philippines because most of them are working abroad.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's very true that you can't expect to build a startup in the Philippines solving first world problems.

The Filipino entrepreneurs I respect tell me that if you want to target the largest group of consumers today, your best bet is SMS. That's where the action is. AFAICT the RP is the texting capital of the world.

<comment><USER6> Mobile is the main web connection for a lot of people in Philippines. Makes sense they will try and tackle that first.

<comment><USER7> "Free" texts, to be exact. 3G/4G networks in the Philippines aren't very good or reliable. And they are expensive, so only a very small minority use them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Betteridge's Law of Headlines: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

So, I'm guessing: No.

As an aside, in this podcast [1], Johnny Arbitrage is mentioned as a model of entrepreneur. Essentially someone who takes advantage of the difference between the money in their own country and a cheaper country, and moves there to try to make things happen.

Could work for many people with the Phillipines I guess.

[1] - [http://www.lifestylebusinesspodcast.com/seven-types-of- entre...](http://www.lifestylebusinesspodcast.com/seven-types-of- entrepreneur/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I've tried to hire in the Philippines for 24/7 operations and have had a hard time... there just doesn't seem to be a big community, or as the article says, everyone leaves.

<comment><USER10> LobangClub from Singapore has relocated to the Philippines. When I asked them why, it's because they're convinced they could hire Python talent cheaper than if they did it in their own country.

<comment><USER11> That is not the only reason. There is also the issue of quantity. 1% of Singapore is very very different from 1% of the Philippines.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think the Philippines has a lot of good entrepreneurs (both expats and native) and for a country as a whole I can't think of anywhere else in Asia where English is a near universal language where even the poor can speak well enough (Singapore doesn't really count since it's more of a city state or micro country).

Unfortunately (someone can correct me but) there a few problems with PI's startup scene (which the article mostly mentions):

1) Most PI entrepreneurs concentrate on traditional industries (mostly in the food sector). I rarely see companies in riskier and more innovative sectors.

2) A lot of entrepreneurs inherit their businesses.

3) Historically PI's greatest export is its English speaking workforce. To my knowledge, it hasn't changed much. Good engineers leave for western countries or elsewhere in Asia where both the pay and conditions are better. The engineers that stay on a whole are sub-par. From experience, PI has a great (manual - not automated inclined) QA workforce; programmers not so much.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Are there any reliable numbers on how many Filipinos are using Android?

</comment><comment><USER13> Neal Stephenson? Is that you?</comment>


Everything isn't broken, but a few things might be looping - <AUTHOR> http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2018/04/01/support/ <comment><USER2> Is it normal to recycle flaky disks back into inventory? I've never run a big operation, but in my own hardware ops I write NFG on anything that might be bad and put it aside for emergency use only. Disks, power supplies, cables aren't so valuable that it's worth installing a suspect one.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Regarding this:

> Also, there's nothing inherently limiting this kind of "good sticks around, > bad cycles again and again" behavior to computer hardware. I have to imagine > this happens all over the place.

I remember reading on Joel On Software, in one writing on hiring that's the same thing for devs, the good devs stay in the company and the bad ones keep cycling in the labor market.</comment>


Holistic Info-Sec for Web Developers - <AUTHOR> https://leanpub.com/holistic-infosec-for-web-developers <comment><AUTHOR> Would love to get your feedback on my new book. You can read on-line for free, or purchase the ebook on LeanPub or physical book on Amazon</comment>


I Don't Want to Hire Women - <AUTHOR> http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/14/i-dont-want-to-hire-women/ <comment><USER2> As a male who manages both men and women, I think the author is guilty of selective perception and unfounded bias. I have had women on my team cry in meetings, but I've had men on my team explode in anger. Neither is appropriate.

Women on my team often want to "gossip," but I've learned to recognize it for what it is: a (misguided) attempt to build rapport with me. I'm learning to redirect the conversation to be more positive. The men on my team are more likely to be jockeying for position, claiming credit for things they had small roles in, and generally exaggerating the truth. I'm learning to ask follow-up questions to get them to think twice before making any claims.

Males on my team are just as hard or harder to retain when compared to the women. I believe they're more likely to leave when they're passed over for a promotion or raise. Females at my company are perhaps more likely to leave because they aren't feeling close relationships. Keep in mind that the reason someone gives you for leaving is not always the real reason. The author doesn't seem particularly sensitive, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's getting "reasons" for quitting that are actually just evasions of hard topics.

These are all just my observations and experiences, but I'm sure there are plenty of studies showing the pros and cons of hiring men and women. Whether biological or cultural, I'm positive there are both pros and cons to hiring either gender.

Regardless, you should see my point: it's easy to get a little selective perception when you notice all the bad things about one gender. The fact that the author claims to be a woman and a feminist doesn't excuse a thing. That just means she's a woman and a feminist who stereotypes and wants to discriminate against women.

<comment><USER3> "I have become profoundly tired of being a therapist and a babysitter"

Then don't be one. I'm a female manager and as soon as that shit starts I shut it down. People only get away with that crap because people tolerate it and I notice they often tolerate it more with women. I don't. Someone who drains time with gossip or whining gets fired. Doesn't matter if they are a man or a woman.

Also notice she talks about a receptionist, not an engineer. I admit I have struggled finding admin staff like receptionists that aren't drama queens. If you hired men for those kind of positions they'd be the same– these are lower status jobs and attract people who can't do well in high-paid higher status jobs. Since I work with some IT construction I also work with lower-status men and they are also very hard to manage. They often quit to mooch off of others or are late to work because of fights with their girlfriends or whatever.

<comment><USER4> Throwaway for obvious reasons. Several years ago I managed a team of three male engineers and one female engineer (who was younger by the men by around 8-10 years) working on a typical software project complete with tight deadlines and the usual last minute rush. Two days before launch while trying to diagnose a particularly obscure bug the team digressed from trying to fix the bug to griping about which framework was used and why it was a bad decision and how unrealistic the expectations from the client were, etc. As a developer I can sympathize with this frustration so I let it go on for about 15-20 minutes and then I interrupted the group by saying something like "We can act like babies and whine and bitch about the things that are beyond our control or we can accept those facts, put our heads down and push forward like fucking adults". The language was rough, but I like everyone else had worked 60+ hours that week. The team begrudgingly agreed and after a coffee run went back to work.

The project launched on time the next day (Friday) and everything seemed fine. We all went out for lunch, toasted to success and hard work, and then went home early for the weekend.

On Monday, the female engineer didn't show up for work, no call, no email, and didn't respond to phone calls. Tuesday and Wednesday the same thing. On Thursday I received the "hostile work environment" claim stating that I had singled her out and referred to her specifically as a "bitch" and a "baby" and my favorite part, that we used sexist names such as "Factory Girl" in our everyday work environment. On Friday we met with our lawyer who explained that despite having three other witnesses that would testify that her story is shenanigans and that FactoryGirl is a commonly used library that we didn't name, it would be cheaper from a cost perspective and from a PR perspective to settle out of court.

The settlement cost more than the project brought in.

<comment><USER3> And then people get all mad when companies want to record everything their employees do. Things like this are exactly why.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this anonymous blogger should evaluate her hiring practices.

I have hired many women and men. If anything I have had fewer melodrama issues with women. The women I have hired are focused, analytical, meticulate and disciplined. I had exactly one so far leave for "soft" reasons; she wanted to pursue nonprofit work in a developing country and we remain on good terms.

In a manufacturing environment, I've had far more issues with gossip, melodrama and feuds with men. As I have brought more women in (not intentionally, but just because they were good candidates) many of those issues have disappeared and our production operations have become more upbeat with fewer personnel issues.

In general, I find a much higher incidence rate of irresponsibility among male production candidates: outstanding arrest warrants, inability to resolve past DUI offenses with the courts, domestic violence that spreads into the workplace, absenteeism, etc. -- all actual issues we have had to deal with.

Obviously not all male candidates are like this, and it would be wrong to draw the opposite conclusion. It is also fairly easy to weed these people out of the recruiting process, or, at worst, to part ways with them if we are not successful in catching it before hiring. But if you find you have hired a bunch of melodramatic and uncommitted women, you should probably ask yourself why your hiring processes selected people with those traits (hint: it is not because of their gender).

<comment><USER6> You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices...

Edit: I'd like to encourage people responding to this to consider the context: an article about why someone doesn't want to employ a certain category of people, and a response to that article about how there's lots of value to be found in that category, if only the author had better hiring practices. E.g. "somebody's gotta hire them" would apply equally to the article's female employees, and thus is _also a criticism of hiring practices that exclude those "problem" people_, which presumably includes the parent. IOW, the premise here is that you want to hire people maximally useful to your business. Maybe you don't think that's should be the point, but then you're having a different discussion.

<comment><USER7> Manufacturing is like that. I've bailed my guys out of jail (enough to get a quickie card from the bondsman), separated fights, etc. It goes with the territory.

<comment><USER8> If this is the case, then this is hardly a fair comparison. Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs and Reason 2 being that, compared to the kinds of men who typically work the floor, just about _anyone_ will look reasonable who works in the office, man or woman.

<comment><USER9> > Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs

"Nimble fingers" was one sexist reason to employ women, at lower pay rates, than men in many industries including auto seat making (because of the sewing) and electronic assembly (because of all those fiddly little components).

There are, and have been since the industrial revolution, very many women involved in manufacturing and industry on the shop floor.

<comment><USER10> This is still true in developing countries. e.g. FoxConn prefers women over men for assembly, but these days they can't be so picky. Most of those died in the recent Bangladesh factory tragedy were women.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> She writes: "I am also yet to have a single male employee come to my office to give me dirt on a co-worker or share an awkward gossip-like story. My female employees though? Every. single. one."

The Economist had an article which tangentially comports with her comment above:

[http://www.economist.com/node/21551535](http://www.economist.com/node/21551535)

<comment><USER12> That is a fascinating study. It's definitely true that at both companies I've worked at, HR has been totally dominated by women.

So if it is true that women are discriminated against in the tech industry, why is that so, given that most people involved in the hiring process are also women?

The fact that attractive women are more discriminated against than plain ones is something that never occurred to me, I always believed it was the other way round. And I never considered that attractive men were treated more favorably. I think at the very least the study shows that discrimination is very hard to root out, and simply hiring along certain quotas doesn't really solve the problem at all.

<comment><USER13> I have absolutely no idea why you're being down modded. But it sounds like you've struck an uncomfortable observation, and people don't like it.

<comment><USER12> I don't think I've said anything remotely offensive, I'm not suggesting that women are not discriminated against, I'm just saying that discrimination is not a simple issue as many people claim.

<comment><USER13> Well, you did also point out that HR is dominated by women. So that means that the hiring process is also dominated by women in quite a few workplaces. Combine that with the observations from the study, and all of a sudden we're put in the uncomfortable situation of explaining the apparently incongruent end-results of hiring processes favoring less-attractive women which doesn't fit the currently "accepted" paradigm of "men are sexist against women in the workplace".

And you're completely right, the issue is not simple in any way. We're stuck making half-observations, trying to make connections between disparate points, etc. But what that tells me is that we're dealing with a very vague, soft, and ultimately subjective issue. Which people are trying to measure using quantitative, hard measurements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > I get extremely angry when I come across articles that insist there are > gender differences that extend beyond physiology.

This is backwards. There are certainly psychological differences between men and women (see e.g. [1]).

However, assuming that statistical averages determine individual characteristics is also wrong. People are _highly_ varied, and an individual's difference from the mean often dwarfs the mean difference between two populations (e.g. men/women). Add to this the fact that people are self- conscious and can change their innate behavior. Sex is a very poor predictor of an individual's psychological traits.

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/2159115...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/21591157-new-technique-has-drawn-wiring-diagrams-brains-two-sexes)

<comment><USER13> Looks like she's got an axe to grind, and doesn't like getting side-tracked by the topic you mention. As evidenced by her rant about it, and her comment- deletions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> "I welcome your comments, as I secretly continue placing the resumes of female applicants into the "call later" folder."

Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure this is a good idea for an employer to put in writing.

<comment><USER16> It's anonymous:

> The post was written by a guest blogger but the veracity of every aspect of > the story has been verified by Blogger Clarissa.

<comment><USER17> I wouldn't condone hacking of the sort per se, but if were someone were to get into the relevant records and name & shame the anonymous author I would not feel any measure of sympathy for them.

<comment><USER18> what? really? I feel like we aren't allowed to have the freedom of speech anymore.

It's A-OK to completely destroy lives and careers through shaming. It's a method of silencing the opposition for having an opinion you don't like. This is evil.

This women is just making an observation from her own experiences..and somehow it's wrong.

<comment><USER19> Well, we need to separate the two acts:

1.) Sharing an opinion and anecdotal experience on a blog

2.) Disclosing that you're participating in an illegal activity (discriminatory hiring practices)

Should she be doxxed and publically shamed for sharing her opinon? Of course not. But should the hiring practices of her company be looked into? Well, thats certainly a much more fuzzy area, because it is no longer a victimless act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds a lot of bad luck (or bad hiring skills) that every single woman she hired was a failure. But every communication issue has two sides. I am pretty sure she reinforced - even if unwillingly - this behavior after reading this:

" _I have developed a different approach for offering constructive criticism to male and female employees. When I have something to say to one of the men, I just say it! I don't think it through – I simply spit it out, we have a brief discussion and we move on. They even frequently thank me for the feedback! Not so fast with my female staff. I plan, I prepare, I think, I run it through my business partner and then I think again. I start with a lot of positive feedback before I feel that I have cushioned my one small negative comment sufficiently, yet it is rarely enough. We talk forever, dissect every little piece of it, and then come back to the topic time and time again in the future. And I also have to confirm that I still like them – again and again, and again._ "

When you put so much effort on something that is not the focus, that thing becomes the focus. If a woman cries after a reasonable feedback and you spend a lot of time trying to justify and compensate on that crying, the crying become justified. So you just reiforced the behavior. But if you are sure your feedback was a fair one; just let it go. Let her cry on her own, without giving much attention to it. She will stop crying sometime, think about things more rationally and the next time she will take feedback differently.

I think the case is just that women express themselves different from men. Women cry at the spot and go emotional. Men keep the things for themselves and talk trash about you later on the bar. If you, as a boss, could listen to the men employees and tried to get some confrontation about the trash talk men do, this would reinforce the trash talking and a lot of new issues would appear on the professional realtionship.

It is just bad luck in this particular scenario that women express their emotion more strongly and vocational; so I think some conscious actions must have being taken so this particular behavior doesn't extrapolate in more serious issues.

<comment><USER21> "We talk forever, dissect every little piece of it, and then come back to the topic time and time again in the future. And I also have to confirm that I still like them – again and again, and again."

Maybe she should not talk forever, dissect every piece of it and then accept the same discussion again. If the problem is emotional unsuitability, this makes it worst.

Maybe she should cut analysis with something like this: "Dont worry about it, everybody makes mistakes. Just do not repeat the same one again." Or something similar. The point is to make them feel less insecure. Cushioning never works with intelligent people, putting past into past can.

<comment> Entrepreneur- You make interesting points. I am definitely open to reviewing my own communication style and how it may be affecting the outcome. That being said, does the problem lie fully with me or is this a trend other people are experiencing also?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Everyone is giving this woman a hard time, but I have heard my wife say something similar. I think a large part of what the (presumably male) posters here are missing is how differently women interact with other women.

</comment><comment><USER23> In a decade of managing teams on and off, I have had more melodrama from male staff members than female. The major flameouts and freak-outs have all come from men. Given that I never got to 50% parity and we're talking less than 50 hires overall it would be a mistake to draw any major inferences from my experience, but the same is probably true of hers.

That said, different people need different management styles. But IMO this is mostly cultural, not gender-based. It happens that in Western culture there are gender behavioral norms that you have to allow for. This is something you just have to get over, because a) nowadays you'll never get away with only hiring people just like you and b) the benefits of hiring people from different backgrounds far outweigh the hassle of having to display some sensitivity and treat your reports as individuals.

</comment><comment><USER24> _"...we were two women, both mothers with very small children, opening a company in a very competitive industry."_

I'm a teacher in adult education in the UK. The students, mostly but not all women, with lots of children/parents and other care responsibilities are, in my experience, the ones who hand work in on time and who really focus in lessons. They have so little time that they have to plan things carefully.

The younger students, mostly chaps, who have no responsibilities take the most management. "Go figure" as I think the Americans say.

Seriously: good luck to Clarissa but she would need a _really good_ HR lawyer in the UK.

Edit: Just bought a copy of 'River of Shadows' as I'm into Muybridge. I could not give a kipper's dick about how the book's author behaved at a cocktail party (having never attended one), I'm interested in the _content_ , you know, what she _has to say_ on the subject. Good blog. Makes you think. Argue even. On my list.

[http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/15/feminism- triviality/](http://clarissasblog.com/2014/05/15/feminism-triviality/)

<comment><USER25> Yes, an excellent blog entry. Here's my fave part

"People's Clothes Hurt Me"

> "It felt as though that shirt was trying to single-handedly put me in my > place—a distinctly inferior and foreign place."

<comment><USER24> "mind narrower than his trousers" is where I'm putting the shirt-wearer ("does his Mum know he is out") but then...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Of the issues she describes, I have seen them in men as well. I have male friends who have quit with nothing in particular lined up next. I have a male coworker who cried in a meeting, and went to his manager to demand that I apologize for offending him and making him cry. Dirt and gossip? I get just as much from male coworkers as female.

I don't mean to undermine or invalidate her experience, but I feel that the sample is too small. At least, my experience is not consistent with hers.

</comment><comment><USER27> Note that this is an anonymous "guest post"—I thought for a while that it was an account by the blog author.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, that disclaimer really should have appeared at the top of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Except for me and my partner (founders, CTO and CEO respectively) all our directors are women. Females represent more than 60% of our company. We never had any of such events happening in the workplace. Immaturity is asexual.

This situation happened months ago in my company:

One female intern came to me, she was almost crying, telling she wanted to quit. She was about to tell me what happened but I only wanted to hear her only after she was a bit calmer. I told her to take the day off, since she had a son, she could use the day to do something more fun. At this point I thought that maybe it was some sort of problem with a phone call. She worked primarily answering calls and giving initial support to users.

After a quick investigation: some employees had a whatsapp group for sharing reddit links, gossip. She asked for an invite and was in the group only as a reader, months later she never reads the group messages and didn't realize the group now became a porn-heaven. Three engineers forgot that she was there made some vulgar comments about her, she discovered. After she confronted them they did some nasty sexual comments about her being in a porn-only whatsapp group.

The three nasty commentators were fired on the spot. Engineers often think code and their github account the is exclusive reason I'm hiring them. They argued about how that was their private, personal activity outside office hours, digging their hole deeper.

After firing them I had a private talk with every engineer and explained what happened and talked about the event. The reason I did this was to find another employees with the same mindset as the ones who were fired, and I did. They were fired weeks after.

One of the three nasty engineers was a woman, when confronted it was clear to me that she was either a sexist or some sort of misogynist.

<comment><USER30> Damn that sounds like a textbook solution to a serious problem. Kudos on being that strategic and methodical about removing the real problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Wtf kind of 1950's world is this person living in? It sounds much less a woman problem than a personal problem that this person is having.

Our company is probably 60w/40m and the dev/tech teams are at 36% women and I can't imagine ANY of this happening.

</comment><comment><USER32> I have a female friend who owns several womens fashion retail stores and so hires all females. She always asks in a job interview what they do in their spare time, if they answer that they hang out with their girlfriends all the time, doing girly stuff etc then they don't get hired because they end up causing bitchy problems in the workplace. If they answer that they hang out with a mix with guys quite a lot, they're never a problem in the workplace. It's worked for her for many years.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder if the author is judging other women for not making the proper feminist choices 'mooching off a boyfriend' etc... Putting a magnifying glass on other women while not even noticing a male who quit to pursue a video game addiction. Someone cried in a meeting. So what? Who yells and pounds tables in a meeting? Why don't we just cover all the stereotypes about gender? Even if everything this author says were true, it doesn't excuse prejudging _individuals_ based on their gender.

There aren't enough skilled people in the world. Don't cut the number available to you in half.

</comment><comment><USER34> There's just as many idiot men as there are idiot women in the world.

The issue stems from the fact that every time there's an idiot man nobody looks at him and says, "look, you're confirming a cultural stereotype!"

</comment><comment><USER35> I can't say I've ever seen these problems with women at my work. I wonder if these issues stem from larger problems in the workplace.

For example, if there was subtle sexism resulting in devaluing the women's work, I could see why they would be seeking positive reinforcement from their female manager.

</comment><comment><USER36> _"Wait", I said, "So, I did thank you then?" – "Yes! But you did not elaborate on what exactly you liked about them! Why didn't you?" She had bought them with the company credit card and I actually did not like them at all, but I digress._

This is a startup? Why not just say: Actually, I don't like those. Also, why not just tell employees that you're not one for gossip? Did the author understand direct communications? How good was she at cementing close relationships with coworkers?

<comment><USER37> >Also, why not just tell employees that you're not one for gossip?

People have different definitions of gossip, the most common one being: 'something that other people do that's not as smart or interesting as what I'm doing right now.'

<comment><USER38> ossreality: your account is hellbanned. I'm not sure how informing you of such things flies on HN anymore, but to see so much wasted time is saddening to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Disclosure: MBTI has tons of issues and it's certainly not the end all for evaluations. There's a reason why HR folks aren't allowed to use it in most firms when recruiting. However, with that said, I think it's quite applicable in this case.

MBTI; NT vs SF. Find women that fall into the NT category and your problem is solved. This isn't an issue with gender as it is with certain individuals. Although looking at the numbers, you will encounter more women falling into SF and more men falling under NT. But, let me throw this out there, don't miss the chance to hire some great women simply because you've encountered some bad apples. You should simply tailor the initial screening phase to catch some of these unwanted behaviors. Additionally, you can employ the try before you buy option and remove bad apples within the first 90 days before they rot the tree.

<comment><USER40> MBTI doesn't have tons of issues. It's entirely unscientific.[1]

[1] [http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/deve...](http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/HRMWebsite/hrm/articles/develop/mbti.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Right, because no men ever behave badly in the workplace?

Sure, there are stereotypical ways in which a small number of people from each gender behave like assholes and create toxic work environments. The solution is to not hire jerks and to get rid of them if you've made a mistake, not blame all ones ills on a particular group of people.

<comment><USER42> Man behaves badly "he is an ambitious d __k. "

Woman, "she is a b __ch, " maybe if we insert words such as perfectionist, ambitious, meticulous, etc.. before the b word it may be different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I read the article and AFAICT, the basic problem is right there in there in the first paragraph:

      > I get extremely angry when I come across articles that insist there are
      > gender differences that extend beyond physiology.

That's just ridiculous and ignorant. Of course there are differences between men and women that extend beyond physiology !! [1]

Reading the comments and the replies, the author seems to deny this fact and wants everyone to be behaviourally uniform.

On the one hand she is applying broad strokes and describing her own experiences with her male Vs female employees but on the other she wants to deny that some of these differences exist and can be explained 'beyond physiology'.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psych...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Psychology)

</comment><comment><USER44> I read through a bunch of the comments and it seems like the author was a victim of her own attitude. She talks about how she intended to employ and empower women in her workplace. It sounds like she might have started with a pro-woman bias but it had the negative side effect of creating a more "casual" environment with the women than the men. The men continued to interact with her professionally but the women interacted more casually and therefore took feedback more personally.

I've personally worked in a number of professional environments with men and women and never seen this from any woman that had any sort of professional job. I have seen it among low paid wage jobs, but no more often than the violent or other harassing outbursts from men in those types of jobs.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't think there's enough information here to make any judgments one way or another. I find non-professional behavior has far more to do with the position held than the sex of the person inhabiting it. I have a hard time imagining a female VP, for instance, behaving so unprofessionally. Conversely, it wouldn't surprise me to see a sales guy acting like a jackass. It's rather more likely that one's professionalism stems from 1) the professionalism that's expected from someone in their position and 2) the effort the individual has gone through to reach their position.

</comment><comment><USER42> Maybe women are too sensitive. Tell a girl at work her hairstyle does not look nice after she asks you, and she is mad at you.

Maybe men are too sensitive. Tell a guy at a sports bar his team sucks and they should be put out of the league, and you are lucky if he does not punch you.

So someone can write a post about women gossiping at work and how that creates all sorts of tension. And someone can write a post about how their boyfriend is so sensitive about his app that telling him the truth and saying it's kind of crappy will probably end up in break up.

Who is more sensitive? I have my opinion, but maybe all of this is a matter of perspective?

<comment><USER45> The man in your example is more sensitive and should be fired and then jailed for assault. It's not ambiguous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Women she employs are entirely different then all women I ever met.

I have never seen a women cry on meeting. I never knew any women that would "stay home to "figure out what to do next"". On the other hand, I have seen men leaving jobs without having another one lined up. I'm not sure whether she sees significant difference between the two or why she would care what employee is going to do.

I find it fascinating that she hires outstanding women and somehow ends up with selection of worst possible personalities. All of them are so super sensitive, that she can not communicate with them without extensive preparation. Maybe, just maybe her criteria for "educated, intelligent and highly articulate" actually select emotional and manipulative people?

It might be just my bias, but I suspect the "highly articulate" criteria. Highly articulate is advantage in some jobs (sales), but irrelevant in jobs like receptionist. Maybe she should look for "educated, intelligent, communicates as adult and in control of emotions" instead. She will get more introverts and less drama.

I also met women managers they managed not to become therapists for underlying - not even for needy employees. So, I suspect there is something in her behavior that encourages them to come into her office again and again.

<comment> Entrepreneur- Most of my direct reports are indeed in sales; exceptional communication skills are an essential requirement for everyone on the team, including the receptionist, as there is a very high volume of people coming into our office on a daily basis. I do find the last paragraph in your comment quite valid!

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> > People in the past 2 hours I have had to Spam 63 comments from losers who > tried to inform me that "men and women are psychologically / emotionally, > etc. different." Once again, anybody who embarrasses him or herself by > chirping idiotically "yes, men and women are different" will be banned > outright.

"losers"? "embarrasses him or herself"? Yes, men and women are different, what's wrong with saying that?

</comment><comment><USER47> It sounds like women just hate working for "Enterpreneur".

</comment><comment><USER43> Heh, what I find mildly amusing is the fact that in writing the blog post and replying the comments the author is just reinforcing the very stereotype that leads her to conclude that women are not worth the risk of hiring.

She is indulging the same type of drama she alleges is the cause of forming her opinion !!

</comment><comment><USER48> Well... this doesn't match 95% of my experience. I've worked with several ladies _(especially in my current gig)_ but only back in at&t do I vividly recall 3 very gossip-driven, melodramatic women. This was out from an org with like 40+ women in it. But those 3... those 3.... sheesh, you could see 'em coming a mile away. They just had issues in general and happened to be females. _(sidenote: if any of you are reading this, you know who you are. The whole department knew who you were)_

I've worked with more unpleasant men than women, but this tech so there's just more men than women in general. Yeah... I don't know where I'm going with this other than this blogger's experience is not an accurate representation of the employee-pool at large.

</comment><comment><USER49> There could be some bias coming from the career paths these individuals are coming from. We can't know because she doesn't elaborate on her industry, but here's an example which would produce this kind of bias naturally:

If she employs engineers (or some other equivalent), there's a good chance they will provide little issues as they tend to be better-educated and more stable than average. They are also predominately male.

Other office jobs are a mixed bag and tend to employ average individuals, with a variety of education levels and backgrounds. This is often 50/50 or sometimes predominately female, such as in HR.

In that case, it would be more accurately comparing average vs. unusually well-educated individuals. Gender would only be proportional to this because of her specific business case.

</comment><comment><USER50> I worked with both men and women.

Some women are really good at their job, really professional.

Other women are not good at their job and unprofessional.

It is the later that are being talked about here. The ones that paint their nails at work and then refuse to do any work until they dry. The ones that gossip and lie about other people to stir up trouble. The ones that refuse to do work and avoid doing work by reading romance novels, watering plants, making coffee, bringing in food, walking around with a clipboard and not doing anything, and wasting as much time as they can just to get that paycheck.

Some men waste time as well as do some of the things some women do to be honest.

</comment><comment><USER51> I can't find the links now (signal to noise ratio is low given the search terms I tried), but I've heard on numerous occasions that there are a few landmark studies where men were given estradiol and other estrogens and that resulted in behavior changes that ape the behavior patterns that most frustrate the author of this essay.

Can anyone here point me to the experimental studies exploring the administration of sex hormone to the opposite gender and its effect on behavior? I've never read them myself and was curious as to their validity and the strength of the results.

</comment><comment><USER52> Blog editor comment on TFA, referring to the post author ("Entrepreneur"): _" In the spirit of full disclosure, Entrepreneur has been known to come to social gatherings with a list of controversial topics for the group to discuss so that the party wouldn't be boring."_

It's worth noting that the Entrepreneur's friend feels the need to point out that she has a reputation of stirring up/manufacturing controversy. In light of this, the post makes a lot more sense: i.e. 'I'm saying something controversial to stir the pot.'

</comment><comment><USER53> In most of my work environments, I've worked with a lot of females and I have to admit that some of the work behaviours outlined are behaviours that annoy me and actually drive me to move companies (citing it as a part of 'work culture'). HOWEVER I don't attribute this to a single sex because I can also see it in the males. Same goes regardless of race and age.

However I do believe that your gender does play a role in the workplace, whether you would like it or not. The only thing is that personality trumps gender stereotypes.

</comment><comment><USER54> I am very disappointed that one of my "own kind" is disparaging women. If that's what females in this field encounter, no wonder there are so few. My deep disappointment cannot be expressed in words right now. Hiring is hard to get right, period. Why are we worrying about gender traits--this article is generalizing to the point of absurdity.

I feel motivated at this point, to change my name to a gender neutral one for hiring purposes.

When people see articles like this, it is affirming, and others will follow silently.

</comment><comment><USER55> > a feminist, ... I don't just stand for equality – I have crashed the glass > ceiling in every aspect of my life.

> As a feminist ...

> ... which is why I have decided not to hire women altogether.

Something doesn't add up here!

<comment><USER56> If women acted like men do, she would hire them. So it's _kind of_ pro- equality.

<comment><USER41> ???

<comment><USER56> Well she's not inherently against women, or pro-men. But of course men (on average) have an advantage in acting like her ideal person, since it's closer to typical male behavior. So it's still not really equal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone who was ever a teenaged girl at any point in their life can confirm that the people who complain the most about drama are generally the people who create the most drama.

</comment><comment><USER58> For once I'm satisfied with HN's reaction.

<comment><USER59> Same!

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is the essence : "It is not men who sabotage women and stump their career growth – it is women themselves!"

</comment><comment><USER61> This is all I can think of: [http://xkcd.com/385/](http://xkcd.com/385/)

</comment><comment><USER62> Indeed sounds a lot like bad luck. I have been working with women, as subordinates, and superiors, and it is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER63> The view that our gender (glands, various gender-related cues, etc) influences our mind and behavior seems to be surreally unpopular these days. Many well worded essays on such in the comments.

</comment><comment><USER64> The problem here is that she is holding one group's (Women's) behavior to the standard of a workplace created by another group (Men).

</comment><comment><USER65> I completely disagree with the presumptions of this article. Hopefully not too many employers feel this way.

</comment><comment><USER66> How is this HN appropriate content?

If I could flag this, I would. This is an anonymous post on a completely irrelevant blog that has nothing to do with the world HN surrounds.

Is it too much to ask that Reddit/Tumblr-esque gender wars not be dragged into every online discussion forum available?

From the guidelines: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."

Just look at the quality of the discussion this has spawned - pure and utter trash.

<comment><USER67> I'm on the fence, but to play devil's advocate:

This is about start ups, it's about hiring and managing different genders, I've seen many great links posted which may help managers in start ups deal with gender issues. I've seen great anecdotal stories about managing different genders. Honestly I've seen very little gender flame war, perhaps because the original article was written by a woman.

<comment><USER66> Well, how do we know it was written by a woman? The post has about as much credibility as an anonymous rant written on a Tumblr blog.

It is an anonymous, anecdotal, generalised rant and little more and this type of content, as can be witnessed on a plethora of other popular online fora, tend to lead to the same things repeatedly:

\- People charging in to furiously counter the generalisation with other shallow personal anecdotes - "Well I have seen men/women do x,y,z!", "In my experience men/women are even worse than men/women at x,y,z!"

\- People charging in with the "not all men/women" argument

\- People charging in to back the generalisation up and commit a rant of their own on men/women

\- etc.

But the resounding repeated behaviour is people charging in, emotions on high, to exclaim shallow, generalised and anecdotal stories of their own. Mainly not to discuss the matter, but to push their agenda in the matter.

This drives the signal:noise ratio in the wrong direction and, if tolerated, degrades the forum as a whole.

I'm not saying that there isn't space for such discussions, but this is not the format for such discussion and only bad can come of it. If anything, mainstream fora have proven to be completely incapable of having rational discussions on gender issues - the more mainstream the less capable (see Reddit.com for example) - and HN is becoming more mainstream as people flood from such sites due to said degradation of the content there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Can confirm, I've worked in a workplace where it was about 6 men and 48 women (no lie).

The gossip dear lord the gossip and cliques that were formed. The cattiness among each other, the talking behind each others back - it felt like high school on TV.

The guys were 4 on tech team and 2 on management.

The rest were sales girls, making calls to close sales in the higher-education sector. (Think e-learning master degrees). Never worked in a place with that many women so I don't have any other measuring stick, but yeesh did that leave me with weird memories.

</comment><comment><USER69> _It is not men who sabotage women and stump their career growth – it is women themselves!_

I wonder if she is (subconsciously?) part of the problem. Now, I'm not saying that she overtly engages in that sort of passive-aggressive, competitive behavior (stereotypically female, but characteristic of the sexes about equally, if not more often by men, in the office context) against them... but it could be that she carries a subconscious bias that leads her to hire a different and possibly lower quality of women than the men she brings on.

If it seems far-fetched, consider the casual misogyny of a high school or college campus, and the vicious cycle it creates for young men. We're not talking about a raving woman-hater. We're talking about the average-case college male who thinks women are irrational, flighty, and manipulative. He's actually right-- about most of the women he pays attention to. That's the misogyny loop: guys who think ill of "women" tend to hang around low-quality women (high-quality women just avoid them) and end up confirming their own biases ("misogyny loop"). If he stopped focusing on the bubbly/popular girls with broken personalities (who get away with it, because everyone wants them) and took a representative sample, he'd realize that women aren't any worse or better than men. Of course, such guys are usually blind to their own broken personalities.

See, I've never seen these patterns she's described. I've worked with a lot of horrible people and only one of my top 10 is female... and, to her credit, she was pretty "active-aggressive" in her toxicity.

I know that these behaviors exist in workplaces, but I don't think they're especially gendered. Passive-aggressive, gossiping men are out there as well.

<comment><USER70> > If it seems far-fetched, consider the casual misogyny of a high school or > college campus, and the vicious cycle it creates for young men. We're not > talking about a raving woman-hater. We're talking about the average-case > college male who thinks women are irrational, flighty, and manipulative.

What makes this an objective observation about men in college, as opposed to the selection bias that you think that these men (however many of them) have and the author of this article?

<comment><USER36> _What makes this an objective observation about men in college, as opposed to the selection bias..._

Are you assuming that he is making this observation in comparison to college women?

I think the observation has to do with _who holds the preponderance of power_. In the artificial age-segregated school environments we've created, young, inexperienced people dealing with the full flush of their hormones and newly matured bodies create their own "Lord of the Flies" society, largely free of the influence of older, wiser people. Natural human instincts create concentrations of power in a minority of popular individuals, and this power corrupts.

This is quite unfortunate, as young people in school are still forming their models of the world.

<comment><USER70> > Are you assuming that he is making this observation in comparison to college > women?

I don't really care. Whether he thinks that college women are misogynist, or misandrist, or whatever is supposed to be the comparison; 'most college men are misogynistic' is a pretty stones-in-glasshouses thing to utter after having complained about other peoples broad generalizations being a result of selection bias. It's fine if it is backed up, but without substantiating it, why would I readily assume that this kind of judgement comes from kind of reasoned perspective, instead of just hanging out with the "wrong" people (which was what Michael originally claimed the author was doing)?

> I think the observation has to do with who holds the preponderance of power. > In the artificial age-segregated school environments we've created, young, > inexperienced people dealing with the full flush of their hormones and newly > matured bodies create their own "Lord of the Flies" society, largely free of > the influence of older, wiser people. Natural human instincts create > concentrations of power in a minority of popular individuals, and this power > corrupts.

> This is quite unfortunate, as young people in school are still forming their > models of the world.

I was talking about men in college. People in university (Masters or lower) are in the age range 19-26, at least in my experience. Even if they are immature, which I won't comment on, there really isn't much of a breeding ground for this kind of environment where I go to school; everyone is responsible for handing in some compulsory assignments and showing up for the exams. How they go about doing this, is up to them. Unlike in high school, people aren't confined to hanging out at the same place from 8000-1500 (again; just my experience), and if some person is disagreeing to you, it is relatively simple to avoid them.

Michael seemed to talk about how these men view women is due to who they hang out with. And certainly, at a decent sized university, you're not strictly confined to whoever happens to take the same classes that you do.

EDIT: I see that the two O'Church fans have been able to get their jollies by now.

<comment><USER71> I also upvoted you, because I think your observation that there's a bunch of selection bias in Michael's perspective itself is right-on. However, I also upvoted Michael himself, because I thought his description of the system itself was _also_ right-on. People can be aware of how systems work while still falling victim to those particular dynamics themselves. And on Hacker News, we try to critique the ideas themselves rather than the people behind them.

FWIW, in my own personal experience, most of the guys I went to college with were not misogynists. Most of them actually seemed pretty nerdy, with both men and women alike enjoying LARPing, duct-tape swordplay, D&D, and board games...and another group that enjoyed sailing and Kings...and another group that was all about music and arts...and another group that was all into technology & philosophy. This is probably a reflection of who I am. There were one or two people I can think of who _were_ misogynist assholes, but I didn't really hang out with them much, besides reading about them in the school newspaper or hearing an exasperated sigh that mentioned them.

I also have not met many truly horrible people in the workforce, so I suspect that is also selection bias. I'm sure they exist; I just don't work for companies or teams where they make up a majority, I usually can sense them in the interview process and steer clear, or quit and find a new job if they start popping up.

<comment><USER70> > And on Hacker News, we try to critique the ideas themselves rather than the > people behind them.

What can I say, character assassination is one of my favorite hobbies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> It seems that she is swinging from one extreme - from being enthusiastic about lifting women up and helping them, to actively avoiding them. But maybe a more balanced approach would yield better results?

Maybe the women just became spoilt by how accommodating she was? She says, for example, that she has to scrutinize every interaction with her women employees, for fear of the ensuing drama. Maybe she should just tell them to get over it? I don't know. But some people will readily bite the hands that feed them too eagerly.

<comment><USER72> Completely agree. If you treat people like children they will act like children. To be honest, the author of the post sounds like a somewhat spineless person who's too afraid of hurting people's feelings to manage effectively. The women percieve this and react to it, as perhaps the men do as well by completely ignoring her (not alpha, not a threat, no problems).

You can't tiptoe around people and also lead effectively. Yes, some people will cry. Some people will have angry outbursts. But you remain calm, let them cool off a bit, and then move on with life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Holy shit this site. This crap is getting so much upvotes, the comments in here make me vomit. Where are the mods? surely they would never allow this kind of link on this site?

</comment><comment><USER74> _> She had bought them with the company credit card and I actually did not like them at all, but I digress._

She definitely sounds like someone I wouldn't want to work for. Apparently she didn't like the flowers "at all"? Who hates flowers? This is probably one of those cases where the person complaining might want to look inward as a first step.

EDIT: Oops, it was butterflies. Either way, is a picture of butterflies really some to not like "at all"? Just sounds bitter and angry to me. And why does she feel the need to "digress" and let us know that she didn't like them?

<comment><USER75> The word "flower" does not appear anywhere on the page. The passage you quote refers to "pictures with butterflies".

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> INSERT COMMENT GENERALIZING ABOUT ALL MEN OR WOMEN BASED ON SELECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

BACK UP WITH STUDY FROM 1972 LINKING GENDER WITH PREDETERMINED BEHAVIOR

CORRELATE THE TWO

<comment><USER59> If you had simply not uppercased this comment, it would be snarky but useful. Instead, it reads like an assault; it's the kind of comment a reader looks at and knows they can't use as the basis of a civil discussion.

<comment><USER76> Yeah, I figured that after I posted it. Oh well. (I'm used to using all caps on other mediums when I want to express meta-language/ideas and not natural speech, but I forgot that anything on HN that doesn't look 'respectable' gets downvoted quicker than INSERT JOKE NOBODY ON HN WILL LIKE)

<comment><USER59> It's a guideline on HN. For emphasis, use asterisks, and your text _will be bolded_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> click bait...

</comment><comment><USER78> Do you folks even know what gossip is?

Small talk !== Gossip. God, it's obnoxious reading like 98% of you.

You think "stuff I'm not interested in" is gossip, which is even worse than the assumption "Small talk === Gossip".

Look, adding a qualification or narrative component (predicates not strictly quantifiable over the domain) is a mark of conversation.

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

AGAIN:

BUILDING RAPPORT is NOT GOSSIP.

VAGUENESS is not gossip.

It's SYSTEMATIC oppression. A laundry list of "why this, why this" at the end of a post COMPLETELY FAILS to grok what SYSTEMATIC/STRUCTURAL oppression MEANS.

Learn how to more categories of conversation. LEARN what speech genres are. Stop reducing everything to "gossip/actionable". Stop the elimination of human spontaneity. Stop building the ideal language that the ideal person must speak.

Stop. STOP.

<comment><USER59> Please don't use all-caps for emphasis.

Please don't repeat lines several times for emphasis.

Please avoid assessments of the people writing comments (or call them "obnoxious"); focus instead on the arguments that dismay you.

It's unfortunate because I think there are probably valid points in this comment, but they've been worded in such a way that even people who disagree with you will be repelled.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> This is such a bullshit misogynistic article that hurts women in the work force and makes sweeping inaccurate generalizations. If the HN staff have any once of morality and sense of equality, please delete this article from HN now and ban the author.

<comment><USER25> wow - do you delete your posts shortly after posting them or do you just have incredible restraint which was suddenly broken by this post?

(bg: this is arctansusan's first post after 399 days. Two more quickly followed within 10 minutes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> It's too bad it's anonymous, because it so nice when assholes label themselves as such.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid people can be, women do this, ethnic group a can't do that. We're all human, we're just not that different.

<comment><USER36> When prejudice reveals itself, costing you nothing, it's a time to be thankful. However, the prejudiced shouldn't be vilified as somehow subhuman. When you do that, you're taking a simple token and using it to lay a reductive judgment on a complex person. In other words, you are engaging in a form of prejudice yourself.

Grandparents watching Fox News or saying something racist over Thanksgiving dinner doesn't make them horrible people or evil. They are a product of their time, as are you. This doesn't excuse their behavior, but it doesn't by itself render them subhuman or worthy of hate.

Prejudice is best counteracted by engagement, commerce, and exposure. The vilification of political enemies in the US was understandable given some of the truly horrific things done as recently the 20th century. Today's 1st world should be a different place.

<comment><USER18> I see you only mentioned Fox News. You do know CNN and MSNBC are horribly biased as well.

<comment><USER72> How does arguing over which news provider is more biased contribute anything to the argument you're responding to? All news outlets are biased. Fox is known by many people for taking it to an unrelenting extreme and it's perfectly acceptable to use them as an example of such without listing ten more networks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dakotaraptor ruled Hell Creek Formation as lethal predator - <AUTHOR> http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/dakotaraptor-ruled-hell-creek-formation-as-lethal-predator/article_0c11c4ed-850e-5e8b-829f-e4461a7e868e.html <comment><USER2> Aaaand I am closing the tab for another seems-interesting-article just because of the site is forcing me to join/login or to do some other stuff.

I have no idea how these sites ending up here, in the first page but it's getting the most annoying thing on the internet. At least for me...

<comment><USER3> Presumably upvoted by people who have adblock enabled.</comment></comment>


Create your own Google Street View with Sphericam - <AUTHOR> http://www.dvice.com/2013-1-23/device-puts-google-street-view-car-palm-your-hand

<comment><USER2> Somewhat amused that the embedded video for this $599 device had a google ad overlayed for the €69 GoPano micro.

The demos - showing warped images via normal video - are not great. I've seen this done better: <http://www.see360now.com/> (possibly the same technology? I've no connection to this, I just happen to follow the photographer Paul Raats on twitter)</comment>


House passes JOBS Act. What the new crowdfunding bill means for startups - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/08/jobs-act-passes-crowdfunding-bill-startups/

<comment><USER2> Uh... what? The house passed the bill today. The senate might vote on it as soon as Tuesday. The two bills would then need to be reconciled before Obama could ever sign it.

The photo from the top is a stock photo from Obama presenting "The _American_ Jobs Act" (a stimulus package) back in September of last year.

I sure hope it passes.. but it hasn't yet. What kind of reporting is this?

EDIT: It looks like the HN title has been updated, but not the venturebeat article (yet).

<comment><USER3> Absolutely. The House and Senate are agreeing on the major terms of the law, basically working from the same version. The House passed the Senate's suggestions. The Senate will agree with their own wording, so this should pass. Everybody's looking for a win here.

Now we can begin planning for the new rules of the game. The timing is still up in the air, but the count down is on.

But yeah, sloppy journalism.

<comment><USER2> Well, I don't know. As a commentator said in the news cycle, this is basically the same crowd-funding bill that _already_ passed the house, but has been tied up in the Senate where there are three competing proposals, each very different from the house in details. Hopefully this momentum will cause one of the otherwise stalled Senate bills to be put to a vote, but reconciliation of the two versions might not be a simple process.

<comment><USER4> Hah. I came here to post, "This makes far too much sense, are we sure Congress really passed this?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder to what extent the law of unintended consequences will show its ugly head here. While it is cool that literally everyone and their moms can start a new business or make apps or something like that, I bet it contributes to the boom/bust cycle. I guess I wouldn't have it any other way though...

<comment><USER6> That's a very valid concern. The effect of this can create a boom cycle especially since allows a mass of less experienced players into the market. We've seen this with buying stocks and the property market. That said, I also wouldn't have it any other way , it's really about reducing barriers to new business and something that's needed. It would be nice to see this sort of thing in the UK, but I think it is unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yup this article is wrong, only passed the house so far. That being said, I think the bill is a real double edged sword. Deregulation is always going to lead to bad actors, and I see a rise in fraud from startups that raise funds from the crowd . As for the IPO, look at how the SEC treated Groupon. That is the kind of oversight a IPO demands.

</comment><comment><USER8> So does this mean I no longer have to be an accredited investor to purchase shares on companies?

<comment><USER3> It will if/when this passes. It's not passed yet, article is wrong. But it should if you know the nuances (working on a blog post now).

Basically, you'll be able to invest up to 10% of your income or up to $10k, whichever is less. Startups can raise up to $1mm that way or $2mm if they get themselves audited.

<comment><USER9> Does this freedom extend to buying and selling shares on secondary markets, or only for fundraising.

Imagine the fun of manipulating competition by heavy trading in secondary market shares of tiny companies...

<comment><USER8> I'm excited about the chance to get in on secondary markets as a way to get started into the start up investing game. So I hope that it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Okay, Obama hasn't signed this into law (yet). But with the momentum it has and the current political situation, it looks like its on the fast track. Once it _is_ signed into law, has anyone put together a kickstarter-for-startups site? An AngelList for the masses? Anyone have a set of standardized legal forms that can be used for crowd funding?

My startup is going to raise its first round in a few weeks to a month's time.. we would love to be a test case for crowd funding, if this is law by then.

<comment><USER10> This is way overdue-- consider the fact that this existed in Bangladesh back in the mid 1980s... for people who literally had no credit.

I think the tricky part will be about how deep the SEC wants to get entrenched in this type of action-- how will they view individual investments differently from stocks?

Worst case scenario, this JOBS bill might be a trojan horse to bring more regulation to the startup world (starting with enabling funding, then phasing in regulation in waves).

Either way, this is a sign of progress...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As maaku stated, this is the exact same bill that also passed on its own in November. Some Democrats criticized the JOBS Act as gamesmanship as it mostly reintroduced legislation already passed in the House.

Next step is for the Senate to pass an investment crowdfunding bill. It is not clear how quickly this will happen or how similar the bills might be. We had this much momentum behind investment crowdfunding in November only to be disappointed to date. But Senator Schumer's statement Tuesday was encouraging.

[http://fundinglaunchpad.com/2012/03/investment- crowdfunding-...](http://fundinglaunchpad.com/2012/03/investment-crowdfunding- news-2/#comments)

</comment><comment><USER12> From the comments in the article, it seems the Act has not been passed and that the article is incorrect.

Anyone know enough to confirm that the article is in fact incorrect?

<comment><USER8> It passed the house and I believe it now goes to the Senate and on to Obama to sign.

<comment><USER3> The most recent House version that came up for vote on Feb 26th is using changes that came as feedback from the setup (basically). Of course the Senate will agree with their own suggestions and Obama's got everthing to gain for supporting a "JOBS Act" :)

Real crowdfunding, here we come!</comment></comment></comment>