4 ms·

> The best way to improve the representation of women in the field is [...] to promote them. [...] To push them into positions of influence. I am all for equal

by 4ad 10y ago

> The best way to improve the representation of women in the field is [...] to promote them. [...] To push them into positions of influence. I am all for equality in chances for all people, men and women, black and white, gay and straight, anything really, but this affirmative action "promote X because she is a women" (or black, or XXX) is something I will fight against with all my being and all my forces until the day I die. I strongly feel this type of insidious thinking is the most dangerous thing facing humanity today, worse than global warming, the united states, or global war. I will never be silent against this rampant so-called-positive sexism.

skrebbel 10y ago
Why? I mean, you took two paragraphs to write "I disagree", but you forgot the ", because".
- notamy 10y ago
  Not gp commenter, but I think the point is that while yes, having more women (or <insert group here> for a different discussion) would be a good thing, they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE. Rather, would it not be better to have people with <whatever trait> who are incredibly competent / qualified / etc. who would be a better role model to those with <whatever trait> who want to get into the field?
  - projektir 10y ago
    Incredibly competent is a very high bar to place on a group of people that already has trouble breaking in. That seems like a very good way to keep that group out. I think we already have this problem: it sometimes seems like nobody really wants women unless they are insanely competent. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You don't get to keep a giant population down and then just extract the occasional diamonds and ignore the rest. You need to pull the entire thing if you want those diamonds to be created. > they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE Why do people always state this as if it's the only possible reality? You go from "on minority basis ALONE" to "incredibly competent" in one fell swoop. I seriously hope you don't have people in your organization that are so incompetent that the only reason you could think of promoting them is because they're in an underprivileged group. Because otherwise, your statement doesn't make any sense. It's like you are already signing up for a reality where members of underprivileged group cannot possibly be the kinds of members you'd very much want to have. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that among the group of cool people that you have in your organization, maybe notice the women sometimes. And don't expect them to be "incredibly competent". Just competent enough. The same way you treat everyone else.
    - notamy 10y ago
      Alright, I just wanna say that, as a college student, I probably have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so take it with a truckload of salt :) That being said, I do agree with what you say. I was guessing at what the (ggg)gp comment meant. I'm sure I could have worded it better, but I don't have much experience with any of this. Seriously, thank you for explaining it to me.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  , because ... it's obvious. Promoting incompetent people because they have a vagina is not a policy that will promote harmony between the genders, nor will it magically make meetings vaguely better. It will however lead to resentment and distrust amongst men, who will always wonder if their female boss got where she did by being good, or simply by being a woman.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    The status quo is the opposite. Incompetent men are getting promoted because women are getting driven out of the industry. I agree with making the industry more meritocratic. And the way to do this is to support diversity efforts, and stop promoting incompetent men.
  - sctb 10y ago
    If you're going to participate in discussions on Hacker News it has to be more civil and substantive than this.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Are you objecting to the use of the word vagina? It seems base, uncivil and shocking doesn't it? It's also a statement of cold fact. That is exactly the policy being advocated by Pike and too many people in this discussion thread: promote and hire people simply because of their anatomy. Your shock at my language is not the result of me being uncivil, but at an uncivil policy stated clearly and without linguistic obfuscation.
      - sctb 10y ago
        You continue to attack straw men on a controversial topic, and that is what is uncivil and against the guidelines of this site. Worse, we've seen these scarecrows a million times before and they predictably fail to ever bring us any closer to any insight on the topic.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > Why? Why what? Why do I fight injustice and sexism? Or why do I think sexism branded as feminism is a such a colossal problem? The former is pretty obvious, I think few people in the west think sexism is a good idea, personally I subscribe to a pretty mainstream individualist moral stance. I wrote some thoughts about this in some parallel comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737437 As for the latter, that's a much longer discussion for which unfortunately I do not have the time to get into sufficient detail. Nor do I think this is an appropriate forum for this discussion considering all the downvotes I am getting (no complaining, just stating a fact). Oxitendwe (in this thread) has briefly touched the crux of the issue, however. Mainly that is an attempt of a power grab over society, one that fundamentally has very little to do with women, and in the end it will cause more harm to women than men. I, and most likely my children and friends are directly affected by this power grab.
jordanlev 10y ago
Cool. What if it turned out that in some places there is proof that what's going on is "promote X, because he is a man"... would you then fight against that with all your being?
- 4ad 10y ago
  Of course I would. I strongly want injustice and discrimination to end in the world (which is why I am against affirmative action in the first place).
  - jordanlev 10y ago
    As a developer, it seems pretty clear to me that there is implicit bias going on in our industry. I don't know how or why, but I don't believe that men are inherently better than women at the skills it takes to succeed, so I'm not sure what else would explain the discrepancy. So if my assumption is correct, then I want to ask your help (as someone who fights discrimination with all their being) -- what can I do to help correct this situation? Or perhaps my assumption that there is even bias in the first place is wrong?
    - 4ad 10y ago
      > As a developer, it seems pretty clear to me that there is implicit bias going on in our industry. It doesn't seem clear to me at all. I have seen and lived through, or had many close acquaintances who lived through many specific example of discrimination, including sexual discrimination (in both directions!) but I would not dream of generalising from them. Even if many, or most of them were of a truly appalling nature. Deep prejudice with very damaging effects; nothing subtle of subjective about them. All instances were very different in details, but all that could be deduce from it is that people abuse other people, news at 11. It's very tempting to pretend that assholes, or social darwinism, or ruthless capitalism are examples of class warfare, but usually they are not. That is not to say that everything is perfect the way it is. Certainly there are specific problems, some including specific groups that I would want addressed. > I don't know how or why, but I don't believe that men are inherently better than women at the skills it takes to succeed, so I'm not sure what else would explain the discrepancy. Emphasis mine. Why do you think "to succeed" means, or should mean the same thing to everyone as it does to you? You really think that people outside your socially-defined neighbourhood did not succeed? There are many ways to succeed, but success is something defined by each individual for himself. It has nothing to do with money, nothing to do with employment, and certainly nothing to do with the industry you are part of! Do I think it would be bad for women to succeed less than men in general? I think it would be, but I have no data whether it's true or not in western societies, nor have any way of measuring it, so the point is moot. What I do know, is that whatever the answer to that question is, it has nothing to do with women in tech. That is to say, that even if there's deep injustice going on with women in the western world (no disagreement that there are many societies where women are abused), the solution (or part of the solution) surely is not promoting them without merit in high-tech organizations.
throwaway5752 10y ago
"this type of thinking is the most dangerous thing facing humanity today, worse than global warming" I disagree with you, and am curious how you would justify your position.
- 4ad 10y ago
  Unfortunately I only have a non-answer for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13738310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13738310 I would love to debate this issue, but it's very complex and I do not have the time nor energy right now.
daenney 10y ago
Promote has two meanings: > Further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage. And > Advance or raise (someone) to a higher position or rank. From my reading of the article Rob is mostly arguing for the first and not for giving them positions of power purely based on their gender. But having women in positions of power is important and we should ensure to at least take away impediments that prevent them from achieving that.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > Rob is mostly arguing for the first and not for giving them positions of power purely based on their gender. No, he is not, from the article: > It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team, just because, or promoting women more freely. It's there, black on white (and already mentioned several times in this thread). Illegal (!!) discriminatory hiring and promotion practices are exactly what is advocated by the article.
sagichmal 10y ago
Your "strong feelings" are misguided. As a society or [sub]culture we are not judged on our efforts or philosophies but on our outcomes. And the stakes are higher proportional to the power we collectively wield. If women or other minorities are disproportionately under-represented in our communities then that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  >that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense. Why? Your statement has an implicit assumption - that all demographics have equal interest and potential in every field and community. This has not been proven and if it is not true, then what is the point of making sure everyone has equal representation in every field?
  - sagichmal 10y ago
    CS is not just another field/community, like tradesmen, garbage collectors, or astronomers. It is a field/community that is accruing disproportionate economic and political power. Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power. This is why, not coincidentally, criticisms of affirmative action in tech that point at the relative lack of interest in e.g. teachers or garbagemen fall flat. Those positions and communities don't broker power.
    - Oxitendwe 10y ago
      Well, it's nice at least that you recognize this for what it is - a power grab by the left to seize control of a powerful and influential industry with which they can impose their agenda on everyone else. I don't agree, however, with your statement "Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power". This is an industry. Nobody is owed equal representation in every field of employment. They have to earn it the same as everyone else or you're playing favorites, and since it's a zero-sum game, by doing so you put another group at a disadvantage.
Oxitendwe 10y ago
I agree absolutely, it's disgusting. What sort of message does it send to women, that they cannot succeed without special treatment? We get nothing out of this.
adrianmacneil 10y ago
Have you considered that purely meritocratic actions, with no affirmative action, might only result in reaching a local maxima of productivity for an organization or industry? It's possible that by following your stance and having pure equality, we will not reach an ideal state that could have been reached, given some short term hires/promotions to create role models which then help others to reach their potential.
- 4ad 10y ago
  There is no doubt that this is true, but I do not consider optimising metrics such as productivity across industries or even across humanity itself to be a worthwhile goal. In fact, I consider it to be a dangerous goal in itself. I have little doubt that an AI-driven society with sociopolitical decisions taken by some benevolent artificial dictator, with a planned economy, would score very high in whatever metrics we consider important, but that is not a world I want to live in. Not even if we could find a way to objectively measure happiness and the society would be based on maximising aggregate happiness. I want a live in a world that empowers the individual, and leaves the individual with the choice on how to live his life. A world where each individual has and feels the liberty to pursue happiness. I have little doubt that this world is most certainly not optimal based on most aggregate metrics you can think of, such as productivity across industries.
Tarq0n 10y ago
Can you supply a realistic alternative to affirmative action that would make it unnecessary?
- stale2002 10y ago
  Things like blind interviews and blind resume screening at the initial stage of the interview have shown to reduce bias. Also, specifically making efforts to reach out to women, and get them to apply to your company, work. (don't lower the bar! Just increase your pipeline)
- 4ad 10y ago
  You are implicitly assuming the existence of a problem in the first place.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dmit 10y ago
Aram, I'm 100% certain you mean well, but the part of the post you're quoting is not proposing to abandon perfect equality in favor of a minority group. My reading of the post is that there has never been an equality of chances in technical fields, and that astronomy is one of the few outliers in this regard. And based on his experience in the industry, Rob Pike's proposition is that a disproportional number of women have been forced away from tech careers despite their level of expertise, and that recalibrating the industry's view of the situation is a move towards that equality, and a clear long-term benefit for most everyone involved.

by 4ad 10y ago

skrebbel 10y ago

Why? I mean, you took two paragraphs to write "I disagree", but you forgot the ", because".

notamy 10y ago
Not gp commenter, but I think the point is that while yes, having more women (or <insert group here> for a different discussion) would be a good thing, they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE. Rather, would it not be better to have people with <whatever trait> who are incredibly competent / qualified / etc. who would be a better role model to those with <whatever trait> who want to get into the field?
- projektir 10y ago
  Incredibly competent is a very high bar to place on a group of people that already has trouble breaking in. That seems like a very good way to keep that group out. I think we already have this problem: it sometimes seems like nobody really wants women unless they are insanely competent. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You don't get to keep a giant population down and then just extract the occasional diamonds and ignore the rest. You need to pull the entire thing if you want those diamonds to be created. > they shouldn't simply be put into these positions by virtue of the "minority" (quoted for lack of a better word) traits ALONE Why do people always state this as if it's the only possible reality? You go from "on minority basis ALONE" to "incredibly competent" in one fell swoop. I seriously hope you don't have people in your organization that are so incompetent that the only reason you could think of promoting them is because they're in an underprivileged group. Because otherwise, your statement doesn't make any sense. It's like you are already signing up for a reality where members of underprivileged group cannot possibly be the kinds of members you'd very much want to have. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that among the group of cool people that you have in your organization, maybe notice the women sometimes. And don't expect them to be "incredibly competent". Just competent enough. The same way you treat everyone else.
  - notamy 10y ago
    Alright, I just wanna say that, as a college student, I probably have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, so take it with a truckload of salt :) That being said, I do agree with what you say. I was guessing at what the (ggg)gp comment meant. I'm sure I could have worded it better, but I don't have much experience with any of this. Seriously, thank you for explaining it to me.
zigzigzag 10y ago
, because ... it's obvious. Promoting incompetent people because they have a vagina is not a policy that will promote harmony between the genders, nor will it magically make meetings vaguely better. It will however lead to resentment and distrust amongst men, who will always wonder if their female boss got where she did by being good, or simply by being a woman.
- stale2002 10y ago
  The status quo is the opposite. Incompetent men are getting promoted because women are getting driven out of the industry. I agree with making the industry more meritocratic. And the way to do this is to support diversity efforts, and stop promoting incompetent men.
- sctb 10y ago
  If you're going to participate in discussions on Hacker News it has to be more civil and substantive than this.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Are you objecting to the use of the word vagina? It seems base, uncivil and shocking doesn't it? It's also a statement of cold fact. That is exactly the policy being advocated by Pike and too many people in this discussion thread: promote and hire people simply because of their anatomy. Your shock at my language is not the result of me being uncivil, but at an uncivil policy stated clearly and without linguistic obfuscation.
    - sctb 10y ago
      You continue to attack straw men on a controversial topic, and that is what is uncivil and against the guidelines of this site. Worse, we've seen these scarecrows a million times before and they predictably fail to ever bring us any closer to any insight on the topic.
4ad 10y ago
> Why? Why what? Why do I fight injustice and sexism? Or why do I think sexism branded as feminism is a such a colossal problem? The former is pretty obvious, I think few people in the west think sexism is a good idea, personally I subscribe to a pretty mainstream individualist moral stance. I wrote some thoughts about this in some parallel comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13737437 As for the latter, that's a much longer discussion for which unfortunately I do not have the time to get into sufficient detail. Nor do I think this is an appropriate forum for this discussion considering all the downvotes I am getting (no complaining, just stating a fact). Oxitendwe (in this thread) has briefly touched the crux of the issue, however. Mainly that is an attempt of a power grab over society, one that fundamentally has very little to do with women, and in the end it will cause more harm to women than men. I, and most likely my children and friends are directly affected by this power grab.

jordanlev 10y ago

Cool. What if it turned out that in some places there is proof that what's going on is "promote X, because he is a man"... would you then fight against that with all your being?

4ad 10y ago
Of course I would. I strongly want injustice and discrimination to end in the world (which is why I am against affirmative action in the first place).
- jordanlev 10y ago
  As a developer, it seems pretty clear to me that there is implicit bias going on in our industry. I don't know how or why, but I don't believe that men are inherently better than women at the skills it takes to succeed, so I'm not sure what else would explain the discrepancy. So if my assumption is correct, then I want to ask your help (as someone who fights discrimination with all their being) -- what can I do to help correct this situation? Or perhaps my assumption that there is even bias in the first place is wrong?
  - 4ad 10y ago
    > As a developer, it seems pretty clear to me that there is implicit bias going on in our industry. It doesn't seem clear to me at all. I have seen and lived through, or had many close acquaintances who lived through many specific example of discrimination, including sexual discrimination (in both directions!) but I would not dream of generalising from them. Even if many, or most of them were of a truly appalling nature. Deep prejudice with very damaging effects; nothing subtle of subjective about them. All instances were very different in details, but all that could be deduce from it is that people abuse other people, news at 11. It's very tempting to pretend that assholes, or social darwinism, or ruthless capitalism are examples of class warfare, but usually they are not. That is not to say that everything is perfect the way it is. Certainly there are specific problems, some including specific groups that I would want addressed. > I don't know how or why, but I don't believe that men are inherently better than women at the skills it takes to succeed, so I'm not sure what else would explain the discrepancy. Emphasis mine. Why do you think "to succeed" means, or should mean the same thing to everyone as it does to you? You really think that people outside your socially-defined neighbourhood did not succeed? There are many ways to succeed, but success is something defined by each individual for himself. It has nothing to do with money, nothing to do with employment, and certainly nothing to do with the industry you are part of! Do I think it would be bad for women to succeed less than men in general? I think it would be, but I have no data whether it's true or not in western societies, nor have any way of measuring it, so the point is moot. What I do know, is that whatever the answer to that question is, it has nothing to do with women in tech. That is to say, that even if there's deep injustice going on with women in the western world (no disagreement that there are many societies where women are abused), the solution (or part of the solution) surely is not promoting them without merit in high-tech organizations.

throwaway5752 10y ago

"this type of thinking is the most dangerous thing facing humanity today, worse than global warming" I disagree with you, and am curious how you would justify your position.

4ad 10y ago
Unfortunately I only have a non-answer for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13738310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13738310 I would love to debate this issue, but it's very complex and I do not have the time nor energy right now.

daenney 10y ago

Promote has two meanings: > Further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage. And > Advance or raise (someone) to a higher position or rank. From my reading of the article Rob is mostly arguing for the first and not for giving them positions of power purely based on their gender. But having women in positions of power is important and we should ensure to at least take away impediments that prevent them from achieving that.

4ad 10y ago
> Rob is mostly arguing for the first and not for giving them positions of power purely based on their gender. No, he is not, from the article: > It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team, just because, or promoting women more freely. It's there, black on white (and already mentioned several times in this thread). Illegal (!!) discriminatory hiring and promotion practices are exactly what is advocated by the article.

sagichmal 10y ago

Your "strong feelings" are misguided. As a society or [sub]culture we are not judged on our efforts or philosophies but on our outcomes. And the stakes are higher proportional to the power we collectively wield. If women or other minorities are disproportionately under-represented in our communities then that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense.

Oxitendwe 10y ago
>that fact, that outcome, deserves direct acknowledgement, attention, and recompense. Why? Your statement has an implicit assumption - that all demographics have equal interest and potential in every field and community. This has not been proven and if it is not true, then what is the point of making sure everyone has equal representation in every field?
- sagichmal 10y ago
  CS is not just another field/community, like tradesmen, garbage collectors, or astronomers. It is a field/community that is accruing disproportionate economic and political power. Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power. This is why, not coincidentally, criticisms of affirmative action in tech that point at the relative lack of interest in e.g. teachers or garbagemen fall flat. Those positions and communities don't broker power.
  - Oxitendwe 10y ago
    Well, it's nice at least that you recognize this for what it is - a power grab by the left to seize control of a powerful and influential industry with which they can impose their agenda on everyone else. I don't agree, however, with your statement "Society owes equal opportunity (minimally) and representation (ideally) to all of its constituents into the halls of power". This is an industry. Nobody is owed equal representation in every field of employment. They have to earn it the same as everyone else or you're playing favorites, and since it's a zero-sum game, by doing so you put another group at a disadvantage.

Oxitendwe 10y ago

I agree absolutely, it's disgusting. What sort of message does it send to women, that they cannot succeed without special treatment? We get nothing out of this.

adrianmacneil 10y ago

Have you considered that purely meritocratic actions, with no affirmative action, might only result in reaching a local maxima of productivity for an organization or industry? It's possible that by following your stance and having pure equality, we will not reach an ideal state that could have been reached, given some short term hires/promotions to create role models which then help others to reach their potential.

4ad 10y ago
There is no doubt that this is true, but I do not consider optimising metrics such as productivity across industries or even across humanity itself to be a worthwhile goal. In fact, I consider it to be a dangerous goal in itself. I have little doubt that an AI-driven society with sociopolitical decisions taken by some benevolent artificial dictator, with a planned economy, would score very high in whatever metrics we consider important, but that is not a world I want to live in. Not even if we could find a way to objectively measure happiness and the society would be based on maximising aggregate happiness. I want a live in a world that empowers the individual, and leaves the individual with the choice on how to live his life. A world where each individual has and feels the liberty to pursue happiness. I have little doubt that this world is most certainly not optimal based on most aggregate metrics you can think of, such as productivity across industries.

Tarq0n 10y ago

Can you supply a realistic alternative to affirmative action that would make it unnecessary?

stale2002 10y ago
Things like blind interviews and blind resume screening at the initial stage of the interview have shown to reduce bias. Also, specifically making efforts to reach out to women, and get them to apply to your company, work. (don't lower the bar! Just increase your pipeline)
4ad 10y ago
You are implicitly assuming the existence of a problem in the first place.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dmit 10y ago

Aram, I'm 100% certain you mean well, but the part of the post you're quoting is not proposing to abandon perfect equality in favor of a minority group. My reading of the post is that there has never been an equality of chances in technical fields, and that astronomy is one of the few outliers in this regard. And based on his experience in the industry, Rob Pike's proposition is that a disproportional number of women have been forced away from tech careers despite their level of expertise, and that recalibrating the industry's view of the situation is a move towards that equality, and a clear long-term benefit for most everyone involved.