4 ms·

I'm not a woman, but if I were one, I think I'd be pretty irritated if I was given special privileges or encouragement over male peers to "help me succeed" or s

I'm not a woman, but if I were one, I think I'd be pretty irritated if I was given special privileges or encouragement over male peers to "help me succeed" or something. That seems condescending and unfair.

coldpie 11y ago
I understand what you're saying, but it is a bit more complicated than that. Affirmative action is about leveling an unlevel playing field by giving preferential treatment to those who are on the lower side of the playing field, even if they're "less qualified" than those on the higher end of the field. Yes, when viewed on the micro scale without a picture of the whole field, it may seem "unfair," but that's precisely the point; to raise up those who have been treated unfairly in other arenas. In addition, there is value simply in having viewpoints outside of those you might otherwise receive by valuing people solely on whatever objective "merits" you might be evaluating them on. It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either argument.
- meowface 11y ago
  It is certainly a difficult subject. I understand the good intentions of affirmative action, but I think they cause more harm than good in the long run. To be passed up for a position due to your gender or race, or for a company to hire someone with lower technical qualifications than they'd normally accept due to gender or race, creates a lot of resentment and cultural issues. This isn't just negative opinions at the microscale; it creates a large-scale perception that certain companies or industries are giving preferential treatment, even at the expense of their own productivity and cohesion. Already I see a lot of people complaining about this on various websites, though it's probably overexaggerated a bit given that diversity quotas aren't that popular with US companies relative to many European countries (yet). Even worse, it also might encourage more division and more prejudice towards those minority groups. If a company gives preferential treatment to hiring women, then what are many coworkers going to inevitably think when a woman makes a mistake or something? "You only got hired here because you're a woman." And in that case, they actually have some empirical backing for that assumption. I don't belong to a minority group, but I feel like the anxiety of other people wondering or believing I only (or primarily) got into a certain place because of my gender or race, and not my qualifications, would be very uncomfortable and demotivating. Some people may already think that even when it's plainly not true, but a lot more people will think it if it starts becoming more true more often. Not to mention, on top of that, fear that maybe I'm not that great and my gender/race really was a major factor in my hiring decision. Talk about imposter syndrome. Also, just on a more general ethical note: People in certain groups have indeed been treated very unfairly for centuries, but flipping the table feels kind of "eye for an eye". Of course unconscious biases are a major problem and will probably be impossible to get rid of or ignore during a hiring process, but I think blind hiring procedures (no name, gender, age, etc. listed on resume or during the first stages of initial online interviews) are an all around better option. I think if organizations work hard enough, they can eliminate a lot of these issues in the pipeline. If, hypothetically, an equal number of male and female candidates make it through the blind stages, but many more men make it through the following stages, they can look at it and quickly determine if they have a problem that needs addressing.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either argument. It's especially tricky because the pro-affirmative-action perspective relies on affirmative action actually working. To the extent that it works, the original case for the special treatment weakens. To the extent that it doesn't work, then affirmative action is some sort of token sacrifice, not a way to actually help people. There's an inherent tension in there that most affirmative action proponents aren't really comfortable with.
xena 11y ago
Being transgender gives you an interesting view on tech things. It feels like deadlines and other things are less hardly enforced for me and there is an overall greater sense of leeway than I feel like I would have otherwise had if I was still "in the closet". It feels like it is subconscious on their part, but it is at least convenient. It also shows up in interviews surprisingly.

coldpie 11y ago

I understand what you're saying, but it is a bit more complicated than that. Affirmative action is about leveling an unlevel playing field by giving preferential treatment to those who are on the lower side of the playing field, even if they're "less qualified" than those on the higher end of the field. Yes, when viewed on the micro scale without a picture of the whole field, it may seem "unfair," but that's precisely the point; to raise up those who have been treated unfairly in other arenas. In addition, there is value simply in having viewpoints outside of those you might otherwise receive by valuing people solely on whatever objective "merits" you might be evaluating them on. It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either argument.

meowface 11y ago
It is certainly a difficult subject. I understand the good intentions of affirmative action, but I think they cause more harm than good in the long run. To be passed up for a position due to your gender or race, or for a company to hire someone with lower technical qualifications than they'd normally accept due to gender or race, creates a lot of resentment and cultural issues. This isn't just negative opinions at the microscale; it creates a large-scale perception that certain companies or industries are giving preferential treatment, even at the expense of their own productivity and cohesion. Already I see a lot of people complaining about this on various websites, though it's probably overexaggerated a bit given that diversity quotas aren't that popular with US companies relative to many European countries (yet). Even worse, it also might encourage more division and more prejudice towards those minority groups. If a company gives preferential treatment to hiring women, then what are many coworkers going to inevitably think when a woman makes a mistake or something? "You only got hired here because you're a woman." And in that case, they actually have some empirical backing for that assumption. I don't belong to a minority group, but I feel like the anxiety of other people wondering or believing I only (or primarily) got into a certain place because of my gender or race, and not my qualifications, would be very uncomfortable and demotivating. Some people may already think that even when it's plainly not true, but a lot more people will think it if it starts becoming more true more often. Not to mention, on top of that, fear that maybe I'm not that great and my gender/race really was a major factor in my hiring decision. Talk about imposter syndrome. Also, just on a more general ethical note: People in certain groups have indeed been treated very unfairly for centuries, but flipping the table feels kind of "eye for an eye". Of course unconscious biases are a major problem and will probably be impossible to get rid of or ignore during a hiring process, but I think blind hiring procedures (no name, gender, age, etc. listed on resume or during the first stages of initial online interviews) are an all around better option. I think if organizations work hard enough, they can eliminate a lot of these issues in the pipeline. If, hypothetically, an equal number of male and female candidates make it through the blind stages, but many more men make it through the following stages, they can look at it and quickly determine if they have a problem that needs addressing.
humanrebar 11y ago
> It is a tricky and difficult subject, I would not be quick to dismiss either argument. It's especially tricky because the pro-affirmative-action perspective relies on affirmative action actually working. To the extent that it works, the original case for the special treatment weakens. To the extent that it doesn't work, then affirmative action is some sort of token sacrifice, not a way to actually help people. There's an inherent tension in there that most affirmative action proponents aren't really comfortable with.

xena 11y ago

Being transgender gives you an interesting view on tech things. It feels like deadlines and other things are less hardly enforced for me and there is an overall greater sense of leeway than I feel like I would have otherwise had if I was still "in the closet". It feels like it is subconscious on their part, but it is at least convenient. It also shows up in interviews surprisingly.