4 ms·

Great idea... So they should start hiring women who don't have the skills over others (who happen to be male) that do. Wonderful suggestion. But I'm sure they c

by kefka 11y ago

Great idea... So they should start hiring women who don't have the skills over others (who happen to be male) that do. Wonderful suggestion. But I'm sure they can fake-make a few Social Media fluff positions for women to fill. It's what GitHub did.

jkot 11y ago
Why so angry? If company in Bengalore can have 70% women engineers, it should not be a problem for well funded startup in US.
- michaelmrose 11y ago
  Men make up 75% of the IT workforce and 82% of computer science graduates. If women aren't even studying the field it makes it a tad harder to hire them don't you think? People should aspire to hire the best people in their field not the "right" gender, color, sexual orientation etc. Anything else is bigotry under the flag of diversity. Also if you can do a little basic math you should be able to see that the average company will be no more diverse than the labor pool. For every company that is 50/50 other companies will have even less than the average.
  - sosuke 11y ago
    I may be stepping on a landmine, but your numbers make me curious. Is the goal of gender diversity 50/50 female/male, or is it 20/80 female/male based off the compsci graduates? What does it mean to have a diverse development team, and how did those numbers happen?
braythwayt 11y ago
You sarcastically state: So they should start hiring women who don't have the skills over others (who happen to be male) that do. This asserts that if a company has hired a preponderance of men, and then it goes out of its way to hire women, that it necessarily must hire women who are inferior to the men it was predisposed to hire. This is based on your axiomatic belief that the company's hiring was already fair and unbiased, and if a company doesn't have any (or has few) women, this is because there weren't any qualified women to hire. Same for people of colour, &c. So if hiring is already objectively fair, seeking diversity must necessarily involve hiring inferior people. But the argument falls apart if hiring ISN'T objectively fair, if the assumption is wrong. And that's the point being debated. Thus, if you feel that hiring is already objectively fair, you should state that outright, not beg the question being raised.

by kefka 11y ago

jkot 11y ago

Why so angry? If company in Bengalore can have 70% women engineers, it should not be a problem for well funded startup in US.

michaelmrose 11y ago
Men make up 75% of the IT workforce and 82% of computer science graduates. If women aren't even studying the field it makes it a tad harder to hire them don't you think? People should aspire to hire the best people in their field not the "right" gender, color, sexual orientation etc. Anything else is bigotry under the flag of diversity. Also if you can do a little basic math you should be able to see that the average company will be no more diverse than the labor pool. For every company that is 50/50 other companies will have even less than the average.
- sosuke 11y ago
  I may be stepping on a landmine, but your numbers make me curious. Is the goal of gender diversity 50/50 female/male, or is it 20/80 female/male based off the compsci graduates? What does it mean to have a diverse development team, and how did those numbers happen?

braythwayt 11y ago

You sarcastically state: So they should start hiring women who don't have the skills over others (who happen to be male) that do. This asserts that if a company has hired a preponderance of men, and then it goes out of its way to hire women, that it necessarily must hire women who are inferior to the men it was predisposed to hire. This is based on your axiomatic belief that the company's hiring was already fair and unbiased, and if a company doesn't have any (or has few) women, this is because there weren't any qualified women to hire. Same for people of colour, &c. So if hiring is already objectively fair, seeking diversity must necessarily involve hiring inferior people. But the argument falls apart if hiring ISN'T objectively fair, if the assumption is wrong. And that's the point being debated. Thus, if you feel that hiring is already objectively fair, you should state that outright, not beg the question being raised.