30 ms·

I'm not a Woman in Tech

• aphextron 9y ago
  >I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. Thank you. I find myself feeling the exact same way as a black man in this industry, and cringe at "minority only" events and clubs. We don't need token inclusion and separate praise for being "brave" and "fighting against the odds". We need a world where those things are irrelevant.
  • serg_chernata 9y ago
    Watching from the sidelines as a white male, I have to say that I find these kinds of situations so confusing. Some people want these differences to be highlighted, while others like yourself want the complete opposite. I'm left believing that my only choice is to have no opinion. Though I lean towards your stance across the board.
    • treehau5 9y ago
      > I'm left believing that my only choice is to have no opinion. I learned this lesson a long time ago from the role models in my life that ended up getting burned because of having a differing viewpoint from whatever societal winds were blowing. I, and I realize probably cynically, now only elect to share, post, tweet, or whatnot whatever only can positively benefit my "brand". Sometimes I have to act like my own PR person, because if I learned anything, anything you say can and most likely probably will be used against you. Working in foodservice for 8 years before switching to developer taught me if something you say doesn't offend or piss someone off, you just haven't ran into the right person yet.
      • icebraining 9y ago
        That's my favorite quote from one my favorite characters of Red Mars: “It was a mistake to speak one's mind at any time, unless it perfectly matched your political purpose; and it never did.”
        • djsumdog 9y ago
          Which character was that? John? Frank? Man I loved that series.
          • icebraining 9y ago
            Frank. Coincidentally, he was reflecting on having spoken up about the treatment of women (in a certain community).
          • kfk 9y ago
            Frank, book 1, after a rant on women condition in muslim culture I believe
      • RUG3Y 9y ago
        I'm with you but I pretty much opted out of social media entirely. If I do participate, it's generally for the purpose of keeping in touch with someone or watching a band's tour schedule. Sharing opinions is just not "safe" anymore.
        • booleandilemma 9y ago
          Sharing opinions is just not "safe" anymore Free speech is dead.
          • problems 9y ago
            Not dead - you can speak your mind - just you pay a social price to do so. Free speech, even in the most libertarian concept I have doesn't prevent other people's right to criticize your speech - in fact, I'd say it encourages just that. Speak out against stuff you don't like rather than censoring it. Ultimately it's an effect of large, diverse communities and deep political divisions. If you want to have political discussions in such public places without suffering a reputation hit, the only way to do so is under a pseudonym - and you're free to do that on many sites.
            • humanrebar 9y ago
              Just because something is legal doesn't mean we're at liberty to do it. People mistake society for government and vice versa.
              • problems 9y ago
                I'd argue you're still at liberty to do it - you just have to be willing to accept any social prices associated with it. Other people enjoy the same liberties that you do, they have every right to think and say whatever they will about you due to your speech. Of course, this is really only a significant issue on a public forum, on which you can post pseudonymously and still gain any benefits of discussion without paying any significant toll. Some people view this as a negative and want to ban this kind of commenting - I love it, it means you can experiment with different views, make arguments you might not want to make in real life and see what sticks with you.
      • EGreg 9y ago
        Here is the thing. You can have private opinions but when you express them publicly, the larger the audience the larger the chance that someone can totally misinterpret / take out of context / take IN context but write a diatribe against / etc. what you say. It could be someone who is outraged or someone who actually uses your words to further their ideological agenda against those who are outraged. In short, the more people see what you say, the more chances that it can run away from under you and distract from your brand and its focus. That is why Coke executives don't just tweet their personal views on topics, etc. and why politicians stay on message. Anything you say publicly can and may be used against YOUR GOALS. And maybe against your character. "Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him. As quoted in Champlain's Dream‎ (2008) by David Hackett Fischer" And with AI you can probably quote mine anyone like Richelou. Sometimes, like Trump, the controversy helps attract media attention and you can find a core audience who flocks to you. Then you become a polarizing figure. If that's your way of getting famous, then the price you pay is people quote mining what you say later and you having to filter out people who are constantly lining up to debate you and take you down. Trump has been able to sidestep the parsing of his words by not standing for anything and being so willing to change with the wind and just say so much random stuff, while at the same time saying what enough people want to hear that he totally polarized the country.
        • ams6110 9y ago
          My personal view is that Trump is deliberately trolling the media, and they are taking the bait every time. There's also a "they can dish it out but can't take it" element to it.
          • EGreg 9y ago
            I've watched him and I think it is just too hard for him to control himself. He's got the political correctness and factual accuracy version of dyslexia.
            • WalterSear 9y ago
              IMHO, it's both. He can't help himself, and it works, so he keeps doing it. There's a reason his staff let him twitter.
      • tertius 9y ago
        This is called self-censorship. On the one hand it is probably good for your "brand" on the other hand, authenticity is a key factor in having a strong brand. No-win situation...
        • koolba 9y ago
          > On the one hand it is probably good for your "brand" on the other hand, authenticity is a key factor in having a strong brand. That's the difference between marketing and advertising. Done well, your audience won't even realize you're marketing to them. If you do the public face just right, people will think you authentically share those same views in private.
      • Nadya 9y ago
        This is why I only use pseudonyms online and don't tie together my "real life" with my "life online". I think it's foolish to tie the two together if you ever want to express your personal opinions. Just because they're "popular now" or aren't causing harm in the now doesn't mean that will hold true 10 years from now, keeping in mind that "the internet never forgets".
        • mirimir 9y ago
          Indeed! I have a professional life, using my real name, with virtually no public exposure. I have a personal life as well, using social media, but locked down to close family and friends. And I've had numerous "hobby lives", Mirimir being one of the most recent and active, isolated through VPN services and Tor.
      • Norfair 9y ago
        'If something you say doesn't offend or piss someone off, you just haven't ran into the right person yet' Can I quote you on that?
        • Dimi9909 9y ago
          agree
      • matt_wulfeck 9y ago
        > because if I learned anything, anything you say can and most likely probably will be used against you. Even right now, writing on a niche message board using a fake name, I'm hesitant to voice my honest opinions about anything related to race or gender or other topic like that. it's like there's an army of internet people waiting for you to mess up and will punish you with controversy and/or honestly try and get you fired.
        • andrewmutz 9y ago
          I agree 100%. There is no serious dialog on complex issues like this, because if something you say gets misunderstood, your career is in jeopardy.
          • deleted 9y ago
            [deleted]
          • Dove 9y ago
            That's a great loss. Freedom and rights are wonderful things. But as I see them used to justify censorship, I can't help but think that's exactly what's happening: they're being used. I don't know about you, but I rather resent being used, and I won't have it. We need our serious dialogue. We are undertaking a revolutionary project, realigning the way the sexes relate. The changes of the last century have been enormous. It is arrogance and folly to think that the monotone wisdom of one political perspective is all we need to guide us through such a storm. We need diversity and respect for opposing opinions. We need to gather wisdom from all experiences and backgrounds, and build something excellent.
        • scruple 9y ago
          Absolutely. 9/10 of the comments that I write on HN never see the light of day. And not just on HN, but pretty much every social media platform I engage with. I don't feel like I have anything particularly controversial, inflammatory, or offensive to say. But, I so strongly don't want to be perceived that way that I just opt-out most of the time.
          • 9y ago
      • spinlock 9y ago
        I don't want to make this a Trump thing ... but I"m gonna. I didn't like that he tweeted the CNN clothesline but I just read their response which was doxing and extorting a bs apology from the creator. It shows that the problem is worse than you've pointed out. Even if you're relatively anonymous, you'll be guilty by association if someone uses your words and amplifies them in a way you never could.
        • zimpenfish 9y ago
          Well, the creator of the CNN clothesline wasn't merely "guilty by association" given he had a clear history of posting hate speech and creating fairly obviously bigoted content.
      • johnsonjo 9y ago
        > if something you say doesn't offend or piss someone off, you just haven't ran into the right person yet. Agreed. No matter how calculated you are chances are someone is going to be angry or atleast peeved by you having an opinion. I believe that everyone has a right to voicing their opinion. By this I mean that people should have a chance to be heard, but I believe the backlash that comes from voicing an opinion is sometimes a necessary evil and it too should not be completely silenced. There's a healthy balance in the war of words. I personally feel despite the backlash if you feel strongly about something that you feel is right then speak out about it, and have a voice. Some words need to be heard and expressed. People do often have strong biases, but your words can hold power to sway someone to either side. One important thing to note about truly making a debate a learning experience is just because the person is on the other side of the debate doesn't mean you can't learn some principle or truth from them. You can almost always learn or see some shred of truth from any argument no matter how fallacious, wrong, or stupid it may seem. Our job as conversationalists should be to try to separate the fact from the fiction. As words are expressed and understood people come to know where their misconceptions lie. They start aligning their perceptions with what they truly feel is right. I love hacker news the community often does not take a single side, and the views on both sides are heard. This helps me decide where I should stand on the issue. So I just have to say thank you to those who give constructive thoughts that help guide the conversation.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • cle 9y ago
      People will always (and should) have differing opinions, don't let that stop you from forming your own opinion and then working to improve the situation.
    • rectang 9y ago
      It's perfectly reasonable to have opinions, but to step back and listen, actively and thoughtfully.
    • saiya-jin 9y ago
      I can't agree more - coming from former east-bloc european environment where women had to work same as men and there was no racism (simply because there were only white people for last 2000 years on this place), both of what you mention is distant issue (but clearly some other places are/were riddled with it). I already treat women as equal (actually more), same goes to my LBGT friends and colleagues, and same for all non-white people. But constant presence in media is making these topics so annoying to me, I wish more focus was dedicated to healthy lifestyle for example (probably being selfish here but that's my view, and view of people close to me too). Things like company-wide emails encouraging us to go to gay prides over weekend "where you can finally participate and show your hetero support" - god damn I work for banking corp with 130k employees. If I wanted to go there, I would be already going for last 10+ years. I show support to the cause by treating them as equal, because THEY ARE EQUAL, not treating them like disabled kids. Keep work emails about work, and let me do my own stuff in my own time.
      • Latty 9y ago
        "Only white people" doesn't mean "no racism". As an Englishman, let me assure you my ancestors managed racism against white Irish people extremely well, and - somewhat ironically - plenty of the less educated people around me today are extremely racist to eastern Europeans (who are supposedly "takin' er jerbs"). Your point is "I don't do racist things, therefore there isn't a problem", which is just not true - there are still huge problems for tons of people with racism, sexism and other bigotry, and just because you don't see it or notice it doesn't make it not a problem. You got annoyed? I'm sure some non-racists were annoyed when all anyone could talk about was how bad slavery was. If you don't care about the issue, feel free to ignore it - but saying that people are imposing on you by caring is just unreasonable.
        • ams6110 9y ago
          Is Irish a race? I'm thinking you mean discrimination.
          • Latty 9y ago
    • kelukelugames 9y ago
      An episode of Netflix's Dear White People focuses on the white guy. Might express some of the same thoughts and feelings.
    • hoosieree 9y ago
      I deeply understand this sentiment, especially the "what can/should I do?" aspect, but I think "watching from the sidelines" is a mistake. If we do nothing then the status quo will tend toward more segregation, not less. Some simple things I do to try to make things better in my workplace: With others: * actually listen * never interrupt * make sure criticism is constructive * in a shared codebase, use the lightest possible touch (avoid aesthetic refactoring) With myself: * acknowledge my own privileges/biases, and be aware of the fact that simply what I look like/how I speak etc. can affect other people * be open to the possibility that my own opinions may not be immutable objective truths (this is hard)
      • mistermann 9y ago
        > make sure criticism is constructive My new motto (if I can pull it off), is to never criticize, ever. If I see a project on an obvious downward trajectory, rather than pointing out the blatantly obvious things that could turn it around, I am going to smile and repeat the same nonsense feel good crap my coworkers do as if everything is just fine, and watch it crash and burn. And then in my next interview, I will declare it a smashing success! In my experience, this is literally the recipe for success in modern times. I should note, these observations are based on working in large enterprises where failure of an individual project can be absorbed, as opposed to a smaller shop where success actually matters.
      • humanrebar 9y ago
        > acknowledge my own privileges/biases I'm fine with acknowledging my shortcomings. I think it shows a healthy humility and a kind of leadership that is really lacking these days. But I find the language of privilege to be a certain kind of virtue signalling. I don't ascribe to the underlying philosophy, so I would be misleading my audience to talk about my "privileges". > the fact that simply what I look like/how I speak etc. can affect other people That can describe really bad, really racist outcomes. It's not fair, at least in the Rawlsian sense, to make people responsible for how others react to who they are.
    • skybrian 9y ago
      We all do it, but sharing opinions tends not to be all that useful anyway. From someone else's point of view it's just another stranger's opinion on the Internet. Better to ask questions, share links, and tell stories based on personal experience if you have any.
    • Pica_soO 9y ago
      Its almost like a industry upon itself, being busy being insulted and helping to overcome those insults by selling seminars, stickers and absolution. I almost feel sorry for anyone who is to deal with either side. Harassment is one thing, but if that industry is the only help you can turn too- that is worser. Cause this side has no interest in resolving the core Issue (it literaly lives from it) and doesn't have a interest in a good outcome for the harassed either. Still, if i think back on the woman i tutored in the freshman C-class - and later in there careers - any creep in power molesting those: Its good that this industry exists, to apply pressure too keep standards. For every woman in tech, should be able to walk, live and write like maria.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • lentil_soup 9y ago
      Well, I think that's ok. As fellow white male, our opinion is not really what matters here. It's not really about us. We are involved, we try to help each other out and whatnot, but in the end it's ok to just be there and listen for once.
    • danesparza 9y ago
      Make up your own mind. Be a human. With a spine. And your own opinion. People might not like it, but at least you'll be you.
    • delecti 9y ago
      I don't see their preferences as necessarily conflicting from your point of view. Some people of various groups want the ability to have events of their own, and others want to be included in non-restrictive coding events. Allow/encourage both. Don't fight back against "Women Who Code" events, and be welcoming and polite to women at non-restrictive coding events. You don't need to have a stance on which is better, and as long as you don't try to have a white or men exclusive event I don't see you having any trouble.
      • akatechis 9y ago
        Why would a white or men exclusive event be trouble? Are white men the tainted scourge of the world?
        • delecti 9y ago
          Are you asking sincerely, or are you trying to do some false equivalence sealioning nonsense?
          • Caveman_Coder 9y ago
            It seemed like a legitimate question. The parent comment said pretty much every selectivity group is okay except for white males and the child post simply asked why is that the case. At least that's how I read it.
            • delecti 9y ago
              My point is that I find it extremely hard to believe that anybody could ask the question "what's wrong with a whites only event?" in sincerity. That said, I admit that a men only event is reasonable in certain circumstances.
    • vxxxxxxxxxxxxx 9y ago
      As a fresh US immigrant from the middle of Europe yet visually passing as an average white man, I haven't even shared the style of upbringing that people assume I did, and yet I lean closer to the opinion expressed above because I fear that a determined person with an agenda can find a way to use my story or opinions to illustrate their point and paint me and broad classes of people as problematic in the process. I empathize with those who've also turned to self-censorship for fear of being branded as part of a the problem. I want to have the tough conversations, but not at the expense of being made a public example for holding opinions that are neither hateful nor malicious, just colored by my origins and journey through life: the exact same factors that others advocate taking into account. The whole thing is really unfortunate: people holding moderate (and in many ways, mainstream) opinions are withdrawing from the public discourse, which I don't believe is conducive to satisfactory progress.
      • nsxwolf 9y ago
        I have kids to take care of. There are certain opinions I might have that I dare not discuss. I don't even dare say I have such opinions even without naming them, that's how deep the impulse to self-censor goes. Let's just say I do, hypothetically. I would very much fear for the economic consequences of voicing various opinions. Even if they didn't lead to my termination at work, I'm certain they would prevent any kind of career advancement. I'm reasonably sure I can survive in the world without my opinions being known, or the changes I presumably would like to see not being made. In short, they win, I'll survive somehow, and my kids will eat. They'll also maybe learn that some things I might believe are not acceptable, and will have to think about that when choosing to believe them themselves. Certain ideas and people have definitively won the day, and it's now just survival mode for many.
        • alphapapa 9y ago
          The question then is, will the world your children inherit be better or worse for people such as yourself holding their tongues. These free speech rights we technically have were not acquired without cost--on the contrary, they came at enormous cost in blood. Now we refrain from defending them because doing so might inconvenience us. Of course, it's easy for me to say this, sitting in front of a computer writing vague comments. Food for thought, especially for Americans the day after Independence Day.
    • stickfigure 9y ago
      What's wrong with having no opinion? We're talking about the behavior of others; who cares if Sally wants to order chicken or Fred wants a blue car or Mark and Sarah want to form a club for Pittsburgh-expats? If someone wants to create an award for women/minorities/lefties/gingers/etc, it seems perfectly reasonable to feel neither positively or negatively about it. This isn't a test, you don't get marked down for "no answer".
    • macns 9y ago
      [..] I find these kinds of situations so confusing. Some people want these differences to be highlighted, while others like yourself want the complete opposite. I'm left believing that my only choice is to have no opinion. The post and the parent comment show that this is not a matter of opinion, not a matter to be confused of; we're all human, nothing more, nothing less. Keeping this in mind will clear things up for everyone eventually.
    • dclowd9901 9y ago
      There's a third choice: Have a supportive opinion. Knowing full-well that you don't understand what it's like to be a woman/African American/non-binary/non-straight person in this situation, express belief in everyone's individual experience, and support them in it. Don't assume you know, just listen and show support. If it's a matter of having to decide between the two opinions, bow out, because you have no say.
  • vertex-four 9y ago
    On the other hand... I couldn't continue doing what I do without having spaces where I can feel comfortable and maybe vent a little to people who actually understand by way of having shared experiences. Yes, I'd like stuff not to matter - but unfortunately, right now it does, and pretending it doesn't doesn't help me.
  • CM30 9y ago
    Yeah, agreed. I still remember seeing a bunch of college students pushing for 'segregation' at university because it would 'help minorities' and thinking "Wasn't that exactly what we got rid of because it was horribly racist 50 years or so ago?" It feels like all these 'minority only' events and clubs and what not are going straight back to the bad old days. Just from the opposite 'side' of the political spectrum.
    • mrexroad 9y ago
      Opinions about <group>-only events aside, there's a difference between a homogeneous group of people choosing to be together, and a group of individuals who were barred from using specific toilets, water fountains, seats, education opportunities, jobs, etc. Comparing segregation to voluntary <group>-only events is a gross misunderstanding of how things were.
      • DamnYuppie 9y ago
        Well it is my understanding that it was a whites-only back in the day. Now it is a not-whites only which really doesn't seem as different to me as you comment indicates it really is. It is just a different group of people telling others what they can and can't do.
        • swampangel 9y ago
          If you were white in 60's America, you didn't have to check ahead of time if a given restaurant would serve you food. If you're white now, you still don't have to check. If you're not white, things are different. Can you think of some examples of when you were unexpectedly forbidden from participating in an event/group/etc? Did you have access to alternatives?
          • ams6110 9y ago
            The 1960s were 50 years ago. You won't experience that today (with very rare exceptions), and that's a good thing. But we can't be forever fixated on things that we've moved past.
  • zzalpha 9y ago
    Eh, this is just the standard argument against "identity politics". The obvious counterpoint is that, by working together as an identified sub-group, you have greater power than you would otherwise. Dedicated venues for those sub-groups offer a place to organize, provide communal support, etc. Frankly, I think it's sadly naive to believe that we can simply "Lose all the labels" and that'll magically fix things. "Identity politics" is what led to women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc. And while I'm not one to claim that "women in tech" is of the same significance as those movements, I think history teaches us that sub-groups, bound together with a common goal, are infinitely more effective at instituting change than a bunch of individuals who choose not to organize.
    • monksy 9y ago
      That only works if you want to bully others for the resources. (That's how unions work). That, however, will re-enfonce negative stereotypes for the group and will not improve anything. If you want to overcome the stereotype, work with other people. Get to know them. Learn the rules of the game and play by the same rules as everyone in society does. If you want to identify as that subgroup based on (gender/race/etc) for social and communal support. No one will fault you on that. (That's culture) However, you will be judged on being hostile/exclusive if non-members of that group are harshly penalized for attempting to integrate with the culture.
      • Latty 9y ago
        While there are obviously cases of unions bullying companies, there are many, many more cases of companies bullying employees - unions were originally intended (and still are, in most cases) as a defense against bullying by creating an equivalently powerful entity, not a way to bully. The rest... it strikes me as incredibly hypocritical - you blame these people for creating groups for support and social which you think stop integration of culture, but these groups are created precisely because that integration isn't happening. If you are a young girl who has an interest in computing, but is dissuaded from joining the computing club at school because "only boys like computers" and the club members make fun of her, how are you meant to get into that general community? Now, if there is a girl's computing club and she can join that with no stigma, learn about the hobby and then integrate with that interest already there, it helps make that happen. You can't integrate if you never gain that interest or skill because you are rejected at the beginning. It's like expecting slavery to end by saying black people can be slave owners or own themselves. If you don't recongnise the barrier to entry and integration, then sure, you can paint these groups as negative, but that's just missing the point.
  • emsy 9y ago
    I recently watched an answer on this by Steven Pinker as to why this "re-segregation" is happening. He basically says that legitimate movements don't stop as soon as they've reached their goal and at that point, they start to become regressive. Interestingly he provides an example that hasn't to do with any ism: child protection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFnP5UUXuTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFnP5UUXuTk
    • praneshp 9y ago
      Thanks for this link. I have (independently) been thinking the same thing, that movements become regressive after a huge goal is achieved. Steven puts the point across well.
    • michaelscott 9y ago
      My personal thought on this is that those who devote themselves to these movements internalise them in such a way that the movements define their identity. Once the goal of the movement is achieved, that part of their identity necessarily needs to disappear and because this is such a difficult thing to do they simply shift the movement's goalposts to keep their internal purpose alive (usually toward a regressive point).
      • dri_ft 9y ago
        Yep. Examples of organisations who achieved their original goals and then said "well, time to pack it up!" are vanishingly rare.
      • ahartman00 9y ago
        I think this is part of it. I also think that humans are essentially greedy when it comes to progress. I am fortunate to have a nearly limitless supply of clean water, at nearly any temperature I want. Yet I still curse the shower for taking a minute or so to warm up. It just is never good enough, moving the goalposts as you say.
    • maxxxxx 9y ago
      excellent video. I wish I could get a point across as eloquently as Pinker... It seems these movements don't have a defined point where they can say the goal has been achieved and everybody can go home. Instead I think it's the opposite and the movement wins in strength. The more traction the movement gets the more power and influence it gets and the bigger its goals will get. His example about child protection is great. There is no cutoff point. I would also argue that shareholder capitalism has reached the same state. In a lot of circles it's not even OK to question the current trend of inequality and it's not OK to think about ways to raise standards for everyone.
  • billions 9y ago
    Top performers will not let their accomplishments be belittled through association with a marginalized sub-group. Sub-group leaders, often not masters in their field, find opportunity in leading sub-groups. Everyone in between, that fits the sub-group demographics, quietly takes advantage of the new benefits from the sidelines. The only group that does not have political power is the treat 'everybody' decent group, which has insufficient incentive to push back.
    • briholt 9y ago
      Haven't you heard? Treating everybody decently is racism.
  • monksy 9y ago
    What gets me is that we have a ton of gender, sex, and race neutral user groups, but yet there is forceful attempts at creating a segregated user group. ("Bridge" being one) From what I've seen they're awful, they just reinforce really bad hyperbolic stereotypes about their group. One of my experiences in this was a talk about imposture syndrome. They made the claim that "Women suffer syndrome the most". Also IIRC I couldn't attend because I didn't identify in their target audience and would have to "have a sponsor to attend."
  • Latty 9y ago
    That seems a short-sighted way to look at it. Yes, of course in an ideal world these things would be non-issues, but they aren't. People are discriminated against, and there are barriers from culture that won't change without intentional scruity. Of course, everyone should be able to just do their job and no more. If you aren't interested in being a role model or trying to push for that equality, that's absolutely fine, no one is obligated to do so. Some people do, however, and they will be trying to find others that do, I don't think that's unreasonable. If, for example, women are routinely excluded from male-dominated clubs, for example, maybe they never get an interest in programming. While in an ideal world everyone can attend those clubs and it doesn't matter, if that's not the reality because of societal expectation, until that expectation has changed, maybe girl's clubs allow girls to get involved without fear of the societal stigma of doing "boys things" (if they don't happen to be one of the IDGAF people who do it anyway), resulting in more women in tech, which normalises it, eventually removing the need for girl's specific clubs. This isn't exactly a new idea. It's the same idea behind things like women's-only chess - if the culture has excluded a group for a long time, it can be hard for talented individuals to get started because they get excluded inherently. If you can create a separate culture to get them interested, then merge the cultures over time, you can fix that. To me, saying "we should just have everyone together" is like proclaiming racism was done the day slavery was abolished. Things don't magically get fixed culturally and socially - that takes an integration.
    • tarsinge 9y ago
      > Things don't magically get fixed culturally and socially - that takes an integration. Not necessarily, I see 2 opinions on how to fix this : - An "active integration" like you explain, where the differences are highlighted (what we mostly see in the US). The idea is that by forcing the change we'll get used to it. - A post-racial/genre approach, where the differences are made as irrelevant as any physical trait, so the change comes naturally but it's a long process (what I've mostly seen in France) IMHO the first approach may yield faster results, but only the second can solve cultural issues (in part by blurring and mixing the cultures, instead of crystallizing them)
      • Latty 9y ago
  • dkersten 9y ago
    > cringe at "minority only" events and clubs My observation on this is that some people in these demographics don't feel comfortable when they are vastly outnumbered at events and that "minority only" events and clubs exist to provide them with the opportunities provided by such events, but without the dangers or discomforts that may be perceived or existing at more inclusive events. I can certainly respect that viewpoint, but I, too, hope for a time when this is unnecessary and that all events are inclusive and all people treated equal. (I am a white male)
  • mrtron 9y ago
    My wife and I have discussed this multiple times before, and feel the exact same way. All she wants is regular inclusion! I think it is clear her gender has worked against her several times in the past. When she was running her startup, some suppliers would tell her to put them in touch with a decision maker, despite her clearly being one of two founders/execs. The counter argument I have heard was: "this doesn't help create change in the industry".
    • protomyth 9y ago
      > My wife and I have discussed this multiple times before, and feel the exact same way. All she wants is regular inclusion! Heck, I know people who just want acknowledgement of their existence. The "other" category is not a great place to be. That also ignores when institutions divert resources away that were given to the institution to help the forgotten.
  • owebmaster 9y ago
    We (the ones that are already here) don't need. The ones out, they need to get in. The way the tech club are pretending they are trying to invite more women and black men to tech doesn't work, because it is done mostly by white men. We should be the ones helping more to come.
  • k__ 9y ago
    I met a bunch of people who ride this train like no tomorrow. They are devs but talk like their job is diversity managers...
    • Caveman_Coder 9y ago
      Yeah, it's pretty much an industry on its own now...now we have people who are interested in and focus their energy on "X in Tech" instead of the tech itself...its very odd imho
  • nunez 9y ago
    i (black skin/latino ethnicity) used to cringe at those too, but after thinking about why they exist some more, i finally realized that many people really appreciate having a "safe" space where they can be with other people that look or grew up like them. my family and i usually get along pretty well, but we have very different ideas about things like money or family "closeness" that were only made evident to me from my white fiancee watching "from the sidelines," as someone else above me put it. It also happens that much of the way my family goes about things is very typical for Latino families. She's asked some really really good questions that made me think hard about why my family does things the way they have. As you can imagine, this puts me between a rock and a hard place, as I don't want my family to think that I "forgot where I came from," but I also don't want to participate in things that can really set my future self back a number of years for the sake of the family. Very few of my acquaintances and none of my close friends (i only have a handful) are Black or Latino, so I don't really have anyone that isn't family that I can talk about this stuff with. I also spend almost zero time with other people that "look like me" at work; I've run into very few Black or Latino engineers in my nine year career, though I know that there are plenty out there. I was almost always the only black/latino person on the teams i've been on. I've tried the minority only clubs, both in college and after I started working, and found that I don't like being fit into homogenous boxes or participating in echo chambers. So I've stopped joining them.
  • bbulkow 9y ago
    Sure, @aphextron. I think right-minded people will agree that there shouldn't be separate praise & calling-out @ labeling. As a white male, I cringe too. Yet - how to we get to inclusion and equality? The path of simply being fair and color/gender blind - which is how I was taught to manage & behave in a work environment - doesn't seem to be working.
  • ericmo 9y ago
    The point of exclusivity is creating a safe space for women; for men most spaces are safe spaces - I can assert that as a male. It doesn't mean, though, that we can deal with toxic masculinity without men being involved. I do remember seeing some serious effort within Thoughtworks (and I haven't even worked there) to discuss gender issues without excluding men, so it's not a impossible thing.
  • bostik 9y ago
    * >I want inclusivity, not exclusivity.* I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to highlight that one. And despite what has been said downthread, I am going to state what I honestly believe. TL;DR: any company who isn't trying to attract female engineers is actively shooting themselves in the foot. Before you jump to any conclusions about my statement, please read on because the issue is both subtle and complex. It doesn't fit into a soundbite. From my experience, after nearly 20 years in the industry and a few more in the university before that, the women who stay in technology field tend to be pretty damn good. As far as I am concerned, the very concept of "Women in Tech" being a thing is, in itself, frustrating. And now comes the subtle part. I don't believe that gender has anything to do with skills or abilities. The statements so far are not contradictory; my experience simply highlights a deep-rooted problem. The question is not "why are the women in our field better?"; it should be "what are we as an industry doing to all the rest? Why are we discouraging and scaring away the non-stellar ones?" Now... my observations are not isolated. I have heard and read from several other sources that this is a not an uncommon situation. There is clearly a bias in play. Either it's selection and observation bias, with only the positive samples showing up ... or it's survivor bias. The latter is a scary thought. ----- From the research I've read, in the UK the average retention time for female engineers in tech companies is about 1 year. Judging purely by that metric, at Smarkets we are probably doing something right - or at least we are not doing notably worse than the industry overall. Of all our female engineering hires, no-one has left. I cannot know, but I think that a good part is that we don't treat our female engineers in any special way. They are engineers. Simple as that.
• 076ae80a-3c97-4 9y ago
  I really agree with this. It has always disturbed me when a push for female developers is mentioned; a company should be focused on acquiring the best developers they can, not finding ones of a specific gender. This behaviour is literally an example of the problem it is trying to resolve. To the company I work for, I am a software engineer, not a man or woman.
  • SerpentJoe 9y ago
    A refinement would be that the company should focus on acquiring the developers who will provide the most marginal benefit. For an organization that values diversity but that currently has a non-diverse team, this could tip the scales toward a competent developer who exists outside that monoculture.
    • seaknoll 9y ago
      and/or making higher offers to developers outside that monoculture.
  • falsedan 9y ago
    > a company should be focused on acquiring the best developers they can, not finding ones of a specific gender I agree, that's why I think companies should consider what is putting off women & why the gender balance in tech is so heavily weighted towards males. That is, most companies (regardless of conscious choice) are finding the best (young, white) male developers only.
    • amiga-workbench 9y ago
      I don't think the fault lies at the employment level. I think the societal biases are imprinted in people during their social development. Girls are less likely to be given the equipment and backing to get into software development at an early age, and their peers would rarely understand such an interest. The field and the associated character traits around it are viewed as nerdy or boring, the people who don't give a stuff about such judgements seem to be the people who do gain an interest in the field and consider working in it.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• icebraining 9y ago
  As in some many things regarding politics (in a broad sense of the word), my favorite take on this is by Yes, Minister, specifically the "Equal Opportunities" episode, which overall goes much in the same line as this article. Of course, the irony being that it was written by a man. By the way, if you're interested, I beg you not to read the synopsis. Unlike most, this show has actual actors playing the parts, and they provide a much richer experience than just knowing the story.
  • aembleton 9y ago
    Here's the Equal Opportunities episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KCB6cRruc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KCB6cRruc
    • icebraining 9y ago
      Yes, but unfortunately that version is heavily cropped to avoid the copyright detection mechanism.
• buf 9y ago
  Unpopular opinion: I think when you're in a minority and you are not rising to the top as fast as you expect, you use your minority as leverage to propel yourself. I am also in a minority. I've often felt cheated that my career isn't Musk-esque. And sometimes I even ask the question, "Am I being held back because I'm [in my minority]?" Then I snap back to reality. It's not the minority that holds you back. It's a class system.
  • rootlocus 9y ago
    If you think it's the class system that's holding you back from being Elon Musk, you're the one holding yourself back.
    • dang 9y ago
      That's not what buf said. On HN, please be charitable when interpreting others, in the sense of responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of their meaning. It makes discussions more interesting and flamewars less likely.
      • rootlocus 9y ago
        Perhaps you can find a more charitable interpretation for my comment? If it's not what he said, then it doesn't apply to him. But if it does, it is my personal opinion that people can free themselves of the mindset that how others see them affects what they can or can not do.
        • dang 9y ago
          If I were going to discuss the issue with you, I would! (or at least I hope I would). But my comments in threads like this are limited to the very different issue of what builds vs. destroys substantive conversation on HN.
    • realusername 9y ago
      The class system is obviously holding everyone back, that's why you have poor neighbourhoods and poor cities instead of just poor individuals. And every statistic you see tends to show the class system. Elon Musk is just a statistical error and even then wasn't even coming from a poor family in the first place.
• taylodl 9y ago
  I agree. The problem isn't 'women in tech', it's more like 'assholes in tech' caused by some perverse glorification of Asperger syndrome (not to disparage those truly suffering from Asperger's.) It wasn't this way when I started my career in the mid 80's but somewhere along the way things have gone haywire.
• redm 9y ago
  I wasn't sure what to expect from the title but I agree with this post more than almost anything else I've read. Carving people up by gender, race, religion, just divides us more, even if it's to solve a problem just divides us more; even if it's under the premise fixing that very issue. BTW, I am also not a Woman in Tech, for real though.
• fruzz 9y ago
  There's sexism in tech, and to address it you have to call it for what it is. I'm glad her experiences are such that she hasn't encountered these barriers, but other people have, and they need these words and spaces. Take my previous job. Women were objectified on Slack. A woman was groped, though she didn't report it out of concern for the repercussions. In meetings execs, male execs would only address/look at the men, not the women. The company was 91% men, even though 24% of the workforce for those jobs in the area was female. My friends in another high-profile company in the area were sexually harassed, though they felt like they couldn't report it. They simply left the job. I've mentored young women in high school interested in STEM in a program specific for them. The content is the same, but there's value in having these to counter the obstacles specific to women that they'll face. I've never seen men, as a group, encounter the obstacles I've seen many female peers discuss. Not all women encounter these, but as a group, it's undeniable that there's extra obstacles.
  • iamatworknow 9y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the article. It's not that these things don't exist, or didn't exist for her -- of course they do. The point seems, to me at least, to be that in order to attempt to actually solve these problems you can't actively (or passively) try to exclude yourself from the people causing them. It's like politics -- if you separate yourself into "us" versus "them", how are you ever supposed to work together to find a solution?
    • sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Sort of. The point of the article seems to be more along the lines of "Different people are different. Please don't force your labels onto me." I didn't get the sense that she's trying to change anything. She's just trying to be a person.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • djsumdog 9y ago
• projectramo 9y ago
  Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels. The reason that has come into style is because people have implicit associations and biases. And the theory is the best way to deal with them is to explicitly think about it. Example. You're hiring for a position. It is very technical. You see a bunch of candidates and then you just think some would be better suited to the technical role than the others. Now, let's say you think: let me notice the gender. Oh, this is funny. All the ones I rejected from the technical role as being "better suited to marketing" happen to be female. Am I being fair to them? Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name. (Or, vice versa, you rejected a male name for not being "the marketing type" when perhaps their resume suggests otherwise). It would be better to read the resume without the gender clues. (Names removed, sorority and fraternity info removed, women organization removed etc) But without that I think we make it explicit just so we have a shot at examining the things we don't make explicit. That is the theory, anyway.
  • jrimbault 9y ago
    I had a philosophy teacher who once explained to me how you can only become a master of something only when you explicitly know all of its rules and are aware of all of them. A few examples: - a chess master knows all about chess - a con artist must know all the social rules to exploit them So when recruiting or making a judgment, you should be aware of all your biases.
  • BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    >Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name. Wasn't there a recent study that removing names led to the percentage of men being interviewed increasing?
    • ___another 9y ago
      a recent example: a github conference on diversity, see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6f1a2d/culture_war_roundup_for_week_following_june_3/dig0m7f/ https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/6f1a2d/cult...
• sotojuan 9y ago
  There's an interesting dichotomy on the "women in tech" question between "SV tech" and non-SV tech. I briefly worked at a tech company making oil industry software in .NET in a Houston suburb. Not trendy, cubicles, but they paid fine (and unlike my current job the office was quiet). I quickly noticed that half of my coworkers were not only women, but a lot were people of color and older (I actually think I was the only person under 25 there). Many were managers too. The idea of inclusivity and outreach was never brought up. I think the difference is that these companies are, for lack of a better word, more professional. Startups and SV tech companies seem to focus a lot on culture, people, outings, coworkers being friends, etc. The company I worked on just required you to not be unpleasant and do your work.
  • te_chris 9y ago
    Absolutely. People are rarely willing to talk about class in these discussions, but the reality is that not only have we created an industry with a gender imbalance, we've created an industry with a culture that prioritises the values of one class (middle/upper-class urban men) over everything else. Thus you have 'casual' workplaces with games consoles, beer, lame forced socialising, chill zones etc in which some people feel comfortable and others feel thoroughly excluded from.
    • lmm 9y ago
      My experience is exactly the opposite - "professional" workplaces are all about middle/upper-class values of dress/speech/behaviour and only comfortable for those with a middle/upper-class cultural/educational background, while the SV-casual workplace is a lot more welcoming for those of us from working/lower-middle class.
      • sotojuan 9y ago
        There are bad professional places and good professional places - law and finance and rife with the things you describe. However, my "enterprise .NET software" experience was not bad. I just wore a button up, pants, and leather shoes and no one cared about my class background. If anything, SV tech is commonly full of (and targets as consumers) out-of-touch-with-working-class urban upper middle class people.
• mfoy_ 9y ago
  I totally agree with the premise of the article. If the problem is that unconscious bias makes a specific demographic under-represented in an area, industry, award, etc.. then how does making a target-demographic-specific area, quota, award, etc. solve that problem? It just further exacerbates, or even serves to justify, the original bias-- you can continue to perpetuate the original discrimination on the grounds that there is a specific pool, quota, or designated award for "those people". These policies strike me as really shitty band-aid solutions that treat the symptoms, not the causes, and-- if anything-- delay the wound from closing.
  • jd75 9y ago
    The policies are better than nothing, because you meet people facing the same biases you do and realize you aren't a lunatic weirdo. But in my utopia, everyone takes the implicit associations tests, has the courage to take in the parts that make them feel bad about themselves, and starts working on those things. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html
• odiroot 9y ago
  This is a really important blog post. A lot of commentators from the SV world (and more worryingly recently also from Western Europe) completely miss the point and actually create new, worse divides and new, worse discrimination. I applaud Maria on her strength and bravery to post a piece like this.
• tengbretson 9y ago
  > Unpopular opinion: > I think when you're in a minority and you are not rising to the top as fast as you expect, you use your minority as leverage to propel yourself. > I am also in a minority. I've often felt cheated that my career isn't Musk-esque. And sometimes I even ask the question, "Am I being held back because I'm [in my minority]?" Then I snap back to reality. > It's not the minority that holds you back. It's a class system. Here's something that you might not have considered – maybe you're just not that good?
  • dang 9y ago
    Personal attacks are not welcome on Hacker News. We ban accounts that are repeatedly uncivil, so please don't do this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702873 and marked it off-topic.
• jwomers 9y ago
  Great post. Here's a similar post from my wife on being a "Women In Tech": https://medium.com/@kawomersley/why-talking-about-diversity-is-so-hard-and-how-we-might-make-it-easier-dd7052dae4c https://medium.com/@kawomersley/why-talking-about-diversity-...
• cjcenizal 9y ago
  > Studies are showing that more diverse teams have higher collective intelligence Absolutely! Discrimination is self-defeating. Why intentionally deprive yourself or your team of resources? Or, to take a larger perspective, why deprive _humanity_ of resources? Imagine how many more Einsteins we'd have if everyone had the same opportunities.
• BlackjackCF 9y ago
  As a queer woman in tech... I feel this so much. I don't really know where to sit on this. It's a bit confusing for me. I understand the need for "X minority group in tech" events, I really do. I think it helps newcomers and people who feel like they're at the fringe find a community. At the same time, I DO find it a little weird at times to go to "LGBTQ-only", "Asian-only", or "women-only" events. It just kind of reminds me of... this reverse-frat mentality. Going to events with ONE homogenous group just really skeezes me out for some reason.
  • monksy 9y ago
    I believe that it's an exploit for honest people's desire to be fair. In reality, it's self-segregation.
  • ehsanu1 9y ago
    I think the "-only" part is the problem. Marketing and naming events for minority groups is fine, but they would ideally be welcoming of all groups not part of the minority. Now it might still seem slightly funny for any old person to take part in an event called "black girls code", but it's better than excluding them entirely and I'd hope that most such events are inclusive of all groups.
    • athenot 9y ago
      > but it's better than excluding them entirely and I'd hope that most such events are inclusive of all groups "Most"? No, the point is for ALL events to be inclusive. Instead of combatting exlusion with isolation, it would be far better to strengthen the message that it really doesn't matter what labels other have put on you: if you have a desire in skill X, then come to this event with other people who are further along and learn from them, irrespective of their label. And conversly, if you are skilled in X, come spread the skill to anyone who's got a desire, irrespective of their label.
  • zjaffee 9y ago
    > I think it helps newcomers and people who feel like they're at the fringe find a community. Once thing I've noticed is a lot of the diversity events are directed towards college students. Grace Hopper has a large student presence, in addition to conferences like Out for Undergraduate which are for UG students only. For someone with zero or very little professional experience, to read all these articles about how they will be discriminated against once they start working. Having such resource groups is important, so they know that there are people who do have their back. Once you're an experienced professional, who has built a network of people who recognize your engineering abilities, this fear is less present on the surface, as it can be easier to avoid toxic people when you have the ability to choose who you work with (in a way a new grad doesn't).
• zimpenfish 9y ago
  > Don’t we all, in theory, have the same possibilities for succeeding in tech? In theory, with all else being equal, yes. But all else isn't equal and we all don't have the same possibilities (orders of magnitudes of difference, I'd say.)
• paperpunk 9y ago
  She makes a good point when she says "I’m already here, people. So I’m not the problem you’re trying to solve." I think what a lot of these kinds of posts miss is that efforts to bring women into tech generally aren't aimed at the kind of women who have always done tech, have always wanted to do tech, and participate in the tech community despite their gender. Those women are the die-hards who largely will ignore gender barriers because of their enthusiasm for the field. But if we want to improve the gender ratio we have to think about how to appeal to the women who don't fall into that category too. I do consider myself a "woman in tech" but that doesn't mean I want special treatment. I'm lucky enough to be surrounded by smart, passionate people of all genders and don't really suffer much sexism with regards to my work. What I do want is more women colleagues and I support initiatives aiming to achieve that. Full disclosure: I run a student branch of the Women's Engineering Society here in the UK, although we are far from a women's only group. Most of our events are about 50/50.
  • eeeeeeeeeeeee 9y ago
    I don't consider getting women into tech as the only problem facing our industry. Because once they get in, a lot of them face abuse. Nobody is saying you should get special treatment. Only that we need to acknowledge and label a problem in order for it to have visibility so we can make the problem better. She also says: "I also wish gay rights == human rights. If you throw a parade celebrating women who did awesome shit in STEMM and invite the world to join, I’m in and I’m bringing pom-poms!)" So, wouldn't you take this as saying that the gay rights movement should change their entire PR to advance "human rights" and not gay rights? How do you solve a problem and market a problem without actually calling it out? This all feels like she is reading too much into a label.
    • xxSparkleSxx 9y ago
      While true, the more women you get into tech the more than can end up at the top in tech. The more women at the top of a tech company or working in VC, the more diversity we have at the top which (hopefully) leads to the sexist men at the top being held accountable by their peers. If that can happen, then there will likely be a decrease in abuse towards new comers in the field. Yay!
• Caveman_Coder 9y ago
  You can and should have an opinion, its a part of being a discerning human being trying to navigate this world. It doesn't mean you should never listen to others opinions, but having your own informed opinion is a good thing. If others tell you that you can't because you're a white male, tell them to piss off. EDIT: Downvotes for saying that a white male should have an opinion??
  • dang 9y ago
    This comment breaks the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes. Please don't do that: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It wasn't a great HN comment before that either, because of the combination of gratuitous resentment and category invocation in the last sentence. It probably seemed innocuous when you posted it, but this is the equivalent of dropping a lit match or a cigarette butt in a dry forest: the sort of thing that sparks other resentments and then a huge flamewar. People downvote such comments as a way of trying to protect the thread from the danger. No doubt we'd all prefer a robust discussion in which a comment like yours wasn't a problem but that, unfortunately, is not the fragile container we're working with. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702833 and marked it off-topic.
  • richmarr 9y ago
    I haven't downvoted you but... "informed" is a tricky beast. Many people, but especially white men, especially engineers, think that they're qualified to comment on fields where they are a novice. (see Dunning-Kruger and others) In the field of discrimination, women and minorities are statistically more experienced; so on the whole you'd expect them to hold more informed opinions than white men. At the best of times telling anyone to "piss off" would be poorly advised, but especially so when the people so dismissed are likely better informed.
    • mindcrime 9y ago
      In the field of discrimination, women and minorities are statistically more experienced; so on the whole you'd expect them to hold more informed opinions than white men. Maybe so, but I think it would be a mistake to understate the extent to which white men can experience discrimination. That is, there are far more parameters on which one can discriminate than just gender and ethnicity. For example, you could be a white man who is short. Or fat. Or short and fat. Or an atheist. Or who speaks with a Southern accent. Or a short, fat, atheist who speaks with a Southern accent. The point is, everybody experiences at least some discrimination. As such, Caveman_Coder's position is understandable, even if his language could have been a little less inflammatory.
• fche 9y ago
  > Some people want these differences to be highlighted Those people are political activists.
  • dang 9y ago
    That's definitely not always true and probably not in the majority case either. Please don't escalate a discussion like this straight into political battle—we want interesting, thoughtful conversation here and the two aren't compatible. We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702833 and marked it off-topic.
    • teacup50 9y ago
      > That's definitely not always true and probably not in the majority case either. I don't know what you're talking about; it's an inherently political position rooted in coherent ideology.
    • peterwwillis 9y ago
      I think the decision to detach the comment was overzealous. A reply to that comment on that thread would have been a great opportunity to provide an informed opposing view, and now it'll be stuck down in the cheap seats where people involved in the original discussion won't benefit. The idea of a political activist isn't divisive, it's a core feature of all politics. Every single person engaged in politics does so to bring attention to their issue. Of course, not everyone who highlights a difference in some political sphere is an activist per-se, and marking the distinction may be useful to help understand a potential bias over a politically divisive issue. I understand that you're trying to serve the will of your HN overlords, but can you please ask them to not require you to micro-moderate sociopolitical posts? Downvotes and replies from peers with power provide more positive guidance for group behavior than sending "spicy" comments to the back of the bus.
      • dang 9y ago
        Maybe it was a notch too much. Moderation is guesswork. Fortunately there's plenty of opportunity for people to substantively discuss that aspect and many others. Re your last paragraph: neither HN, nor HN moderation, nor the organization that runs HN, work the way you describe. Just to pick a couple examples, the threads are sensitive to initial conditions, and no one at YC has told me how to moderate. HN users more than make up for it though!
• skrebbel 9y ago
  I don’t want your ‘exclusively for women’ support groups I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female. You’re also indicating that “this is a women’s problem, best solved by women” but that deepens the divide, creating an “us” and a “them”. Just based on gender… This is the core point for me. Indeed, the problem exists, and it needs to be solved by men, not women. Women generally are already doing the best they can - even the ones that want to not care and just go about their work - they feel obliged to write blog posts like this one. We men must make the changes that make women feel more welcome at the workplace. One easy to way to start (courtesy of a friend of mine) is to go up to a female colleague and ask for 1 thing that can make the company more inclusive, then do that without judging. (i suspect the same holds for other minorities in tech, but this thread is about gender)
  • stephengillie 9y ago
    It's as though the safe space that protects one person is the hostile environment which harasses another person. One's heaven is another's hell, to put it colloquially.
  • Cakez0r 9y ago
    > We men must make the changes that make women feel more welcome at the workplace. One easy to way to start (courtesy of a friend of mine) is to go up to a female colleague and ask for 1 thing that can make the company more inclusive, then do that without judging. This is exactly the kind of behavior that the author is speaking out against. > It’s hurtful when you say “we need to solve the problem of women in tech” and “Maria, you’re a woman in tech” in the same breath… My take away from this post is that Maria is hired as a software developer and would like to get on with software development. Not be a champion of diversity just because she is a woman. > Maybe I’m representative, maybe I’m not, but don’t ask me to represent! > You’re also indicating that “this is a women’s problem, best solved by women” but that deepens the divide, creating an “us” and a “them”.
• msimpson 9y ago
  > Studies are showing that more diverse teams have higher collective intelligence... Yet the evidence provided for this claim regards preliminary findings of a singular study conducted six years ago. > Is it a problem that of computer science degrees earned, only 28% are earned by women? Again, the evidence provided for this claim is an article about an article about an infographic stating, "Among all students holding B.S. degrees in Computer Science...28% ARE WOMEN...though we recognize that this has decreased over the last 25 years, we are encouraged by the increases that are occurring." However, the source for these figures seems to emanate from this table: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_349.asp Which illustrates, "Degrees in computer and information sciences conferred by degree-granting institutions, by level of degree and sex of student: 1970-71 through 2010-11." And shows that between 2010 and 2011 only 17% of bachelors degrees went to women while 28% of masters degrees went to women. So that contradicts the figure reported in the graphic as it seems they used the wrong degree type. Nevertheless, I was at least able to eventually source this figure even though it holds little bearing on discrimination. > Or that the rate of women in computing has been steadily in decline since 1991? I cannot even source this statistic and no evidence is provided. Although, it would seem to be contradictory given what's listed in the above report. > Or that twice as many women quit the high tech industry as men? Again, no evidence is provided for this conclusion. However, I do feel that I've previously read an article to this effect. Although, it was quite faulty in its conclusions and I believe I left a comment to that effect. So I cannot even speak to the veracity of this claim without doing a bunch more research. > Assuming we can agree there is a problem... Given what's above, we cannot. > I’d say it’s something like this: the problem is, that the tech industry isn’t able to attract and retain enough women. Well I'd say something like this: attempting to force equality over a volunteer workforce is unnecessary and meaningless. If women want to become a larger portion of the tech industry, they are free to get educated and work their way up just like everyone else. And if they encounter actual discrimination or harassment along the way, there are laws already in effect which can be readily enforced.
  • djsumdog 9y ago
    I really like how you broke down the sources, statistics and try to put things in perspective. I really tend to agree here. There is no mention of pay in this article, but there are plenty of other sources that dispel the myth that women get paid less than men (it's more like people of lower confidence simply do not ask for as much money -- both men and women; see The Confidence Gap). I also think part of the reason we see fewer women in Tech is they don't want shitty jobs. We have everything from Dilbert to Office Space to We The Robots, all showing how terrible life in a cube can be. Women often take jobs that pay less but are more fulfilling (teachers, nurses, non-profits). If we want more women in tech, I think we'd need to make tech more fulfilling and less miserable for everyone.
• Dimi9909 9y ago
  lol. the photo ruined imagination...
  • djsumdog 9y ago
    photo helped me relate .. fellow brightly coloured mohawk :)
  • dang 9y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Would you please not create accounts to do that with?
• contenttypegeek 9y ago
  Well said! I wish more people would think the same way. I'm a long-time (10 years+), digital nomad. My younger daughter (currently 6) grew up mostly in Southeast Asia, but also in Europe and to a certain extent, all over the place (we have been traveling a lot (duh)). It's interesting to observe that she has absolutely no concept of minority labels - for her, a Thai Muslim, a Balinese Hindu, an African-American classmate in Europe or an Arab (presumably Muslim) neighbor from Mauritania living in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, etc. are all just... people. Regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. You could say 'she is a child, she will be spoiled over time' - I'm doing everything in my power to prevent the latter from happening, and don't agree with the former: she has the concept of sexes, skin colors, and differences in general (it's obvious from her questions that she does realize there ARE differences) - she just does not view them as differences in the sense we do (minority/majority, typical/weird, out-of-place, extreme, etc.). To her, it just does not make sense to put people into boxes, tell them apart based on whatever criteria, etc. !! HOWEVER !! If she is met with the constant emphasis on how certain groups are different from the mainstream, she might develop the notion that there is a need for those boxes after all... The irony of the situation is that the people that have the biggest power to steer her into this direction the most are coming from those minority groups!!! It's way easier to shield her from the majority attacks (say, a Nazi remark from a white guy directed toward a black dude, or a guy saying shit like 'all Muslims are terrorists' etc.) by asserting 'never mind; they are assholes.' However, if a member of a minority group is pouncing on the fact that he/she IS a member of a minority group and how everyone should realize this and do x/y/z then... how I am going to explain that to her in order to forego the creation of a minority label/box?
  • illumin8 9y ago
    Humans have become very good at building in/out social groups. We even did it when we lived in small villages of homogenous skin colors. I admire what you're trying to do, but pretending that human nature is different than it has been for thousands of years is likely to leave you disappointed.
    • contenttypegeek 9y ago
• tawayyy 9y ago
  I agree with what Maria says. One huge problem at this point, is that the "women in tech" problem is completely dominated by activists in this field, that does not happen to be always very balanced in their visions. Normal people try to disappear when there are those kind of discussions, because they escalate easily, and you can get hurt in many ways. So we as a community of programmers, should try to get more involved to avoid that only people with extreme over-reacting thoughts handle it.
  • notyourday 9y ago
    Worse, lots of those activists aren't themselves "women in tech" rather they are "women doing <xyz> in companies that identify as 'tech'"
• adventured 9y ago
  edit Why did my comment get dislodged from being underneath another comment that I was replying to? It's now showing as a stand-alone comment under the thread. ------------------------------------------- I'm doing a similar thing. I stopped posting anything personal on Facebook about a year ago and I never post to Twitter. I'll never go back to posting personal thoughts on social media, not under any circumstances. It's a wholly pre-emptive move. At least in the US, society has become so aggressively censorship-by-threat & political correctness oriented, with severe consequences to going against popular opinion, it's not worth the risk to my business interests to stand out with an opinion that could be unpopular at any point (get caught with an opinion that is in the minute considered hurtful, hateful, whatever). I don't agree with unfettered illegal immigration for example; I overwhelmingly agree with legal immigration and think the US system needs reformed to facilitate easier immigration. The left now considers that to be racist, xenophobic, hate-thought, insert-control-vector-label-here. I don't agree with feminism as a concept, I'm in favor of equality (which - in my opinion - nullifies the supposed point of feminism). Many on the left consider that to be attacking women, holding women down, being sexist, being anti-women, etc. This is the only place I post opinions online now.
  • mercurysmessage 9y ago
    I don't think you are approaching this right. You are painting an entire group of people under the same brush... Also, feminism is promoting equality.
    • adventured 9y ago
      I disagree that feminism is promoting equality. I think I'm approaching it exactly right. Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. If this were a personal discussion on Facebook or Twitter, the left's censorship/control attack wave would be rolling in right now, calling me countless labels (instead, here you'll just get downvotes, your life won't be ruined and your business won't be threatened with boycott for not being in favor of eg illegal immigration).
      • 9y ago
• johnpython 9y ago
  SV tech companies are infested with young white brogrammers who only want to work with people who look like them and share their hobbies/interests. They call it "cultural fit" Edit: missed important adjective "white"
  • femwarrior 9y ago
    Citation?
    • praneshp 9y ago
      I vouched this so I could get to know 'johnpython's views.
  • BadassFractal 9y ago
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/diversity-in-tech/ http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/diversi... - aren't half to a third of those companies staffed by Asians? Are they white brogrammers by association as well?
  • dang 9y ago
    Would you please stop posting flamebait to HN? You've done this repeatedly and we ban such accounts. If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702902 and marked it off-topic.
• Pxtl 9y ago
  It's hard to know what's right on this stuff. For every woman like Maria, there's another woman saying that exclusive events helped her get over her fears and join in. There are women who celebrated their geeky side and then were scared off by men who, for whatever reason, couldn't manage to treat her like one of the boys. Some areas of tech have reached that terrible threshold where women aren't just a minority, they're ultra-rare. This makes the problem worse as they become a black hole for all the attention, both positive and negative (and that terrible combination of both where a million lonely young men chase the one woman who is Like Them). Even if you subscribe to the idea that the apparent disinterest of women in the field is not a real problem, you can't deny that it's bad when they start facing the effects of being a "fringe group".
  • danesparza 9y ago
    "It's hard to know what's right on this stuff" Perhaps. After all, we're a very diverse species, humans. But please don't use this as an excuse to stop engaging.
• DavidWoof 9y ago
  As a straight white male, this type of thing has never affected me directly. But as a programmer who's now in his 50s, I'm starting to get a very tiny taste of the same emotions. There was an article on HN just a few days ago about "why you should hire older programmers" which I felt to be deeply, deeply offensive in a way I found hard to articulate. Why are you putting labels on me? Why are you pretending there's something special about this aspect of me that's completely irrelevant to my tech skills? It really bothered me, and I couldn't figure out how to respond to it. I couldn't imagine being inundated with this stuff on a daily basis. If there were "older programmer" meetups or if HR were reaching out to me to put me in outreach materials or if I had to read articles like this all the time, I honestly don't know well how I'd deal with it. It's easy to deal with the occasional age discrimination in the industry (which is definitely out there), but it's actual this other aspect of it that I find infuriating.
  • danesparza 9y ago
    I love that even though it's taken you a while to see from somebody else's point of view you took the time to share this. Especially "I couldn't imagine being inundated with this stuff on a daily basis". Thanks.
  • kowdermeister 9y ago
    We can't exists without labels. There are no lab-white programmers out there pure as a function. I missed that article, but older probably meant more experienced. You shouldn't be offended, but it's up to you. I try to avoid labels too, but I can't escape it. In a room full of firmware engineers I would be the "web guy", I'm fine with that. There are "older programmer" meetups, it's just not called that way. A friend of mine visited a smalltalk meetup in London and he sad it was a couple of guys in their 50-s. He really enjoyed it. I think it's much better to learn to live with labels (after all you can invent your own) than being constantly pissed off about them.
    • DavidWoof 9y ago
      > I would be the "web guy" > smalltalk meetup in London and he sad it was a couple of guys in their 50-s These examples sound to me like the exact opposite of what was being discussed here. In both cases, these are examples of labeling based on technical skill or interest, the complete polar opposite of what's being discussed here. > than being constantly pissed off I don't see how either myself or OP said anything like this. In fact, I tried to emphasize how I had experienced only a tiny taste of this kind of thing.
• rdtsc 9y ago
  There is an interesting idea that I like there and that is that it's not ok to talk for people or assume they are victims or part of some victimized class unless they also identify as such, or they make it a part of their identity. I imagine it would be rather annoying trying to tell someone about a cool algorithm you figured out or implemented and instead they come back and say "Oh but how has your status as a woman played into this algorithm, did you write it because you were oppressed..." and in reality they really just want to talk about the cool algorithm. It would be like someone imposing their assumption about me being an immigrant and assuming that is the primary part of my identity and somehow that struggle or issues I've had because of it are front and center and color everything I do in life. There is a different issue, if I come out and say "yes, this shapes everything I do, I want to talk about it, and so on". It would feel patronizing, and even more so if they'd somehow used it to push some kind of agenda.
• stevew20 9y ago
  This is the most well thought out, honest, and non-agendized essay I've ever read on this subject matter. Bravo, and I hope readers see the value in a piece such as this!
• yeslibertarian 9y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aUcOP6Iqo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aUcOP6Iqo4 The Sociobiological Truth About Women
  • dang 9y ago
    Single purpose accounts, and/or accounts that use HN primarily for ideological battle, aren't allowed here because they violate the mandate of the site (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). We've banned this account.
• losteverything 9y ago
  I hate to break this to ya, but we all have labels; most are not self defined. Most have more than one. Lose your hearing when addressed by a label. Get tough if you have to. I remember when we openly said "it's a woman doctor," or "a woman chef" So its not desired to be addressed by "woman in tech" but it will happen. Just like the "divorced" group or the "wealthy" or the "rehab" or the DINKs or whatever. It is the personal responsibility of the sayer to avoid labels out loud. Your post helps those that might slip know it is not desirable We all have such great contributions we can make because we are individuals: not because we have a label. But don't think they don't exist.
• BadassFractal 9y ago
  Many will disagree with the post's take, because it doesn't comfortably fit the narrative of women being a special class of people that need to be protected and shielded from the evils of the tech world. In reality this is the only answer, you don't make something stronger by coddling it, you make it stronger by exposing it to adversity. Beware of the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. Old school feminism would approve of your take, but the new generation of identitarian radicals will just tell you that while you OP are a woman, you're still white and not sufficiently intersectionally opressed to have an opinion in the matter. They would claim you should probably shut up and listen to those higher than you on the victimhood totem.
  • sctb 9y ago
    If you're going to comment on Hacker News, you have to leave the unsubstantive flamebait on the cutting room floor. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• pryphet 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing. I've started to avoid these sorts of events/initiatives myself because they are a huge time sink. If I'm already disadvantaged, why am I expected to take on extra volunteer commitments? Especially when my peers don't face the same pressure to participate in these distractions? IMO, I think companies should focus on fixing their broken interviewing process and becoming more transparent about hiring and compensation.
• johnpython 9y ago
  The mentality espoused in this blog post is way off the mark and similar to how Uncle Tom's deal with racism. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore the problems with diversity that is your prerogative, but demanding other women and people of color to do the same is extremely gross and unsettling.
• mrkabuki 9y ago
  No, you're not a woman in tech. You're an ugly bitch
• thegayngler 9y ago
  As a black man I am going to disagree with some of what she said even if I can relate on some level. You need support when you are hired especially as an "under represented" person. If the company didn't think you needed support they simply wouldn't be offering it. Most of the "not under represented" people have support that helps them become more successful.
  • exodust 9y ago
    Completely lost on your meaning, sorry. I literally have no idea what you mean. Care to elaborate? "Most of the not under represented people"... say what?
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • unidentified103 9y ago
      Most of the people who claim to be "not underrepresented" - i.e. they are in an underrepresented group but they do not lay claim to the title - still benefit from some of the support that is offered to them from being in that underrepresented group.
• mkalygin 9y ago
  People have a great ability to put labels indeed. Whenever you do something "untypical", you earn a label. This pisses me off. It's not about women only, it's about judging people by any set of attributes and making conclusions that it's unusual to do thing A because you do thing B.
• Mz 9y ago
  She's right. We need to find ways to be less implicitly exclusionary. It is vastly more effective than being explicitly inclusionary, which has all the problems she is decrying. Longer explanation: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/07/less-exclusive.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2016/07/less-exclusi...
• Naurception 9y ago
  Completely agree with what Maria said. I also cringe at the "WomanInTech" tag. I would like to be noticed for my engineering skills rather than because I happen to be female. I definitely want to see more women in technology. There are social pressures because of which girls move away from STEM. We need to encourage more 11-12-year-old girls to try out science. Both men and women in tech can help make that happen. However, being noticed because of your color of skin or gender and not because of your ability is demeaning.
  • exodust 9y ago
    What's your opinion on artificially inflating the perception of women in science in order to attract more women to science? It's not a loaded question, I'm genuinely curious for opinions. For example if say NASA is 30% women but more women are presented on the NASA online stories, articles, blogs and scientist profiles, along with a dedicated domain women.nasa.gov, and other tactics. (Naturally there's no men.nasa.gov)... all to reinforce the message that "look, women can do this too" (to use the OP's quote). Are we moving into the zone that the OP was concerned about? Over-inflated labels and reactionary agendas that? Or is that fine, do we use whatever tools and tactics available to bring more women to science, even if it means promoting an unrealistic or inaccurate impression bordering on disingenuous?
• twii 9y ago
  I cannot agree more with you! Besides, if men think they are better in tech, why do I see so much rubbish code produced by them? Imao it's just men's ego's, sexism and stupidity that creates this discrimination. It's abject and should change, the sooner the better! (I'm not female btw)
• mcfunk 9y ago
  I mean, how nice for you? This article seems to be very much about how there isn't a problem for people like the OP, because people who don't feel they benefit from all-women's tech groups are perfectly free not to go to them. I attend both all-women(/trans/femme) tech meetups and broader meetups. I get different benefits from each. I don't think anyone advocates for a world in which women in tech don't ever have to associate with anyone else, and most of us work in male-dominated spaces to start with, so it seems a little nonsensical to posit some sort of hyper-separation/man-avoidance or victimization in woman-run groups (many of whom run events that are not woman-only as well). I find it productive to have spaces where the express goal is to uplift women in tech and to center issues in tech specific to women. The support and comfort level in these groups is often fantastic. When men at other meetups stop asking questions like "oh, a women's python group? Can I come? I'm into that kind of woman" then let's talk about how we are in some sort of a world where tech groups for women are somehow counterproductive.
  • exodust 9y ago
    > "oh, a women's python group? Can I come? I'm into that kind of woman" But that's funny, depends on who said it and how well you know them. Between friends or close colleagues, VERY crass and 'vulgar' things are said for laughs. Or maybe they were being honest? Or... it's offensive and representative of sexism in tech. The choice is yours.
• teddyh 9y ago
  A theory: Women-only groups aren’t just “Women-only”, they also exclude women with these beliefs. But this is far from obvious, so women at these group gatherings see only themselves, and it becomes an echo chamber where they believe they represent all women’s views on this subject.
• 3minus1 9y ago
  This whole piece strikes me as rambling and misguided. > “Woman in tech” is just another label I don’t need The author agrees there is a shortage of women in tech and that it is a problem, yet how can you address a problem of underrepresented groups in tech without talking about those groups and referring to them through the use of labels? Does she really think we don't need these labels? > I don’t want your ‘exclusively for women’ support groups Those support groups are an attempt at solving the problem. Is it possible those groups are helpful to some women, even if not for you? > I don’t want your special award Same as above. This is an attempt at fixing the problem. Maybe it's not effective and kind of dumb/patronizing in some cases. Is it really where you should directing your frustrations though. No, if you care about the problem you should directing your frustrations at the root causes. > It’s hurtful when you say “we need to solve the problem of women in tech” and “Maria, you’re a woman in tech” in the same breath… I really did not understand the author's point here. People look to women in tech as pioneers and sources of solutions for getting more women into tech. It is quite natural to bring up women currently in tech, when thinking of ways to recruit more women into tech. I get the author's point, that a lot of this stuff doesn't apply to her. She's comfortable in her job and doesn't need support groups or awards. It almost feels like bragging on her part, in the guise of acting annoyed at all this stuff that she doesn't want/need. Good for her, but not every woman can be like her, and shooting down attempts at solutions while offering none of her own is pretty shitty imo.
• dimgl 9y ago
  THANK YOU. Holy shit things are getting so ridiculous nowadays.
• notacoward 9y ago
  The thing that makes these kinds of discussions so difficult is that people often aren't clear (even in their own minds) about eventual goals vs. immediate actions. Absolutely, inclusion and color/gender/whatever blindness is where most of us would like to be eventually. Unfortunately, pretending we're already there doesn't get us there. It just preserves the status quo. As painful as it is, we have to accentuate and perhaps even exaggerate both the problem and present remedies. If you're not willing to take even the tiniest risk of over-correction, you're practically guaranteeing permanent under-correction. I'm sure the OP is quite sincere. I find her attitude laudable in its way. Unfortunately, I also find it a bit non-generalizable and counter-productive. We don't yet live in a world good enough for that prescription to work.
  • toufka 9y ago
    Is that approach not entirely just an opinion of yours though? How can you state so firmly (in opposition to many here) that "you're practically guaranteeing permanent under-correction". I think that statement is only true if those in the majority have no desire for true equity - which then is begging the question. If the hypothetical 'truly equitable' personality exists, is it not of some moral repugnancy to require them to re-engage with a (by definition) racist or sexist system, even if the racism and sexism being engaged in are to the short term advantage of society? Are you suggesting the end justifies that particular means? And is that not precisely a moral failing? And for the sake of the argument, if you presume some people are more sexist/racist than others, then you also must allow that some are less sexist/racist than others - and precisely those hypothetically equitable personalities would be put in a very real moral quandary by your strategy. And does then requiring sexist/racist actions that such people would otherwise not have taken part in, then act to precisely "preserve the status quo" of sexism and racism? I would just question your confidence that your strategy is the correct one to get where I think we all want to eventuality arrive. It may be a viable strategy, but it's not yet clear that it is the only viable strategy. And though it might be a fast strategy, it too could be a less morally sound strategy. There are tradeoffs all around, and it's uncharitable to make declarative decisions about those moral tradeoffs on behalf of others.
    • 9y ago
• LarryPage 9y ago
  Labeling groups of people is like using global variables. You should really try to avoid it, but sometimes it's needed to work through a problem.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• LeozMax 9y ago
  I stopped reading after "agile coach". Yeah, she's not in tech.
  • dang 9y ago
    Please don't comment like this here.
• jwr 9y ago
  I'm so glad this article made it to HN front page. This is so important! All kinds of "affirmative action" have two unintended side effects: 1) they emphasize the artificial divides, 2) they make people who are subject to affirmative action the subject of suspicion (did he/she get there on his/her own merit, or because he/she is a woman, black, or otherwise a minority?). We should strive to stop emphasizing superficial differences between us. What your sexual identity is or what your skin color is should have no more bearing on things than what the color of your t-shirt is. That's what we should be aiming for. Note that all that I wrote above would likely be received in different ways depending on whether I said I was black or white (or a man or a woman, pick your divide). It's another sign of how we're approaching the problem badly.
• meej 9y ago
  "You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female." This is exactly how I felt during my Microsoft internship in 1998 when the internal women's organization, HOPPERS, decided to change their successful "intern buddy" program from opt-in to opt-out. (Well, not really opt-out, because until I got upset with them about it they clearly never considered that anyone might want to opt out.) Despite being only one of two women, both interns, on a team of 40 people, I never felt anything other than welcomed by my team and never felt singled out or harassed because of my gender. As such, I felt quite insulted by the assumption that I needed an "intern buddy" just because I'm a woman in a male-dominated field. A long email thread with the head of the organization ensued, and in the end I did not have the intern buddy that I never asked for in the first place. I wholeheartedly support the self-organization of underrepresented groups to create safe spaces. However, when participation in such efforts is compelled by things like special awards for members of underrepresented groups in tech or being assigned an "intern buddy" without your knowledge or consent just because you are a member of an underrepresented group, that's not a safe space. That's a ghetto.
  • zjaffee 9y ago
    The one advantage I see beyond the traditional self-organization of various diversity groups is that an ERG can do a lot with a non zero amount of money, and influence within the recruiting department. Forced participation is never a good thing when it comes to this type of stuff, but to have the money to send those who do wish to participate to events that help those who feel excluded, to feel included is certainly valuable in its own way.
    • bjt 9y ago
      What's an ERG? Google isn't showing me any meanings that would make sense in this context.
      • greenleafjacob 9y ago
        Employee Resource Group
• pj_mukh 9y ago
  " Or that twice as many women quit the high tech industry as men?" .... I’m already here, people. So I’m not the problem you’re trying to solve." This seems contradictory, women leaving tech is one of the biggest problems, so even if she is already in tech keeping her because she is a woman is still a concern. Its great that she likes to play Diablo II and be one with the boys, but a lot of women don't but that doesn't make them bad tech workers. That is the crux of the problem. The insidious cultural requirements that no one has on paper, but everyone intangibly enforces.
• ithilglin909 9y ago
  Yes, yes, and yes. I'm a woman and a also pretty damn good software engineer. It drives me crazy that nearly every time I tell people what I do they want to ask me about my experiences of sexism at work (I've never experienced that in a significant way). I hate that HR people constantly want to talk to me about how supportive they are.
• thedz 9y ago
  I'd urge folks in this thread to remember to treat this post as only speaking for Maria, and not as political capital for your personal POV about Women in Tech, because, well, that's the entire point of her post. Not everyone is going to agree on the best way to foster diversity and inclusiveness, and that's fine.
• roywiggins 9y ago
  > Are XY-ers, who identify as female, welcome at DevelopHER? If they're not, then DevelopHER is trans-exclusionary and regressive. People who "identify as" women... are women.
• Dove 9y ago
  That's how I feel about it, too. There is no war. Women are not oppressed, men are not oppressors. We're all just people with problems who need support and compassion. Besides being morally wrong, a tribal approach is limiting. If you can't learn from, if you can't make friends and allies with people from all walks of life, if you must sit in your little castle with the few you count as your tribe -- are you not obviously much poorer for it? I think so. Believing you are an outsider is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just stand up and expect to belong. Judit Polgár eschewed women's chess events because she knew she belonged with the top competitors. And through perseverance and high expectations, this became obvious to everyone. That is how you change the world. Boldly expect acceptance, and my experience has been -- you will receive it. [Source: 20 years on the internet, as a gamer and in tech.] I think treating someone as disadvantaged, even if they're quadriplegic, does them no favors. It is a kindness to recognize situations in which they need help, but it is an unkindness to make invalid a part of their identity. Let the main story be strength and dignity and independence. And so with those of us whose problems are slighter. But there is a troubling trend I want to oppose. People seem to have the impression that if a member of class A says the wrong thing around a member of class B, the latter has the right to become vindictively angry. That's . . . really destructive. I think the policy I'm advocating is the best, but if you do something else, I'll take it as you mean it. I think most people are trying to be nice, and understanding and kindness and good old fashioned gettin' along do a whole lot more good than fighting some battle for cosmic justice by being a jerk in the break room.
  • ahartman00 9y ago
    "If you can't learn from, if you can't make friends and allies with people from all walks of life, if you must sit in your little castle with the few you count as your tribe -- are you not obviously much poorer for it" Exactly, see this article from two days ago about how men and women are afraid to be alone with one another. Considering how often networking comes up in any job related thread, I think we are much poorer for it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14685873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14685873
  • ducttapecrown 9y ago
    >Boldly expect acceptance, and my experience has been -- you will receive it. Thank you for your 2 anecdotes! Perhaps since Susan Fowler [0] followed your advice and did not achieve results, you will give her anecdote the same argumentative weight you give yours. But there is a troubling trend I want to oppose. People seem to argue that getting vindictively angry and fighting for your rights is wrong, and that its better to sit back and let others like you be oppressed. Fortunately, someone else has written on the subject far more eloquently than I have. [1] [0] https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-one-very-strange-year-at-uber https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on... [1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
• ElvisPeacock 9y ago
  Under-represented-group-in-Tech events are about large organizations trying to improve their brands by being inclusive, from all outward appearances.
• tepidandroid 9y ago
  Just want to thank the author of the blog post as well as the more level-headed engineers (black, white, female, male, whatever) who commented in this thread. I feel like i've been slowly losing my mind with the constant oversensitive rhetoric and white-knighting taking over every aspect of life and the workplace. Of all fields, engineering was supposed to be about merit. I would say that in the modern day and age, the vast majority of company cultures integrate employees just fine and don't give a damn about the colour of your skin or your sexual orientation. And you know what? I think that's the way it should be. Enough with the hand holding and mollycoddling. It only serves to demean the efforts and accomplishments of those who don't need or want it.
• ecesena 9y ago
  > So I’m not the problem you’re trying to solve. I guess the natural question is "how would you go to find and fix the problem?" (not complaining here, I think the post is great)
• renlo 9y ago
  My sister was a software engineer. She wasn't ever a part of those women-only developer groups. She just really liked programming. It wasn't a political statement, and I don't think I've ever heard her talk about 'sexism in the workplace' that everyone else seems to love to talk about. She left her engineering job to raise her children. My mother was completely against this move though because my mother (also originally a software engineer) thought it was bad form that an educated female engineer would leave the workforce and 'waste her life as a stay at home mom' (paraphrased), and that my sister needed to set a good example as a professional woman or something. I kind of think it's all silly that my mother would push for this, but I do understand it, because when my mother was a software engineer things were pretty bad. However, I think these days it's pushing the point too far.
  • jd75 9y ago
    Of course your sister should make her own choices, but the pressure on a mom in tech to leave is still absolutely immense. The more of us who tough it out, the better for our daughters.
    • renlo 9y ago
      It would be great if there was more part-time work in tech in general. Seems as though this would be something everyone (mothers, single or married men/women) could benefit from. Not to be too personal, genuinely curious, what do you hope to gain by 'toughing it out'? A better workplace for your daughters? Or to set an example or something? Coming from someone with a mother who 'toughed it out', I rarely saw my mother growing up, and only really saw her when she became a consultant much later.
      • jd75 9y ago
        I enjoy making things with code. I like earning a check. Why do you stay in your job? It makes me sad to think my kids will think I didn't do enough for them one day, but dads have been working full-time for ages. You're not the first person who has pressured me to go part-time, either.
• ithilglin909 9y ago
  YES. I’m a software engineer. I’m a woman. I’m not a “female-software-engineer”. I don’t need people in HR randomly telling me that they support me (umm, thanks?). I hate that the typical first question after I tell someone what I do is usually about sexism, not about what I’m working on. I’m not a victim.
• dang 9y ago
  > So you just don't like to hear opposing views? Personally abrasive escalation takes threads into flamewar, so please edit such things out of your comments here. As a bonus, the signal/noise ratio of your comments will get higher. Edit: fixed now, so I've detached this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14703776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14703776 and marked it off-topic.
  • root_axis 9y ago
    Fair enough. I can't edit at this time, but noted for the future.
    • dang 9y ago
      I'll extend the editing window for you. Always happy to do that to help people fix stuff like this (in fact we may eventually build some software support for it).
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• jd75 9y ago
  I like having events where women can get together without getting hit on or talked down to and where you've often encountered the same kinds of problems. However. At my last job, there was just constant pressure from HR to go to these "Women in Tech" things that had nothing to do with writing code. I have three kids and a full-time job -- if I'm missing time with my kids and making my husband do more than his share, I need to be learning something both new and awesome. One day, I may have time to mentor or help recruit or just mingle for free hummus (it's always goddamn hummus at the women's things). That day is so not now.
• luord 9y ago
  She's smart, I'm glad she works in tech. We need more people in the field, I'm hoping for more like her.[1] [1] This is not an attempt at disparaging people already in the field.
• hyperliner 9y ago
  This reminds me of a special award that some folks that were part of a [special ethnic group] wanted me to compete for. It was "[special ethnic group] Engineer of the Year Award 20xx". My boss (who was not part of [special ethnic group]) sent me an email saying "Hey, there is this award thing that HR is doing and they say since you are of [special ethnicity] they want you to participate in." My reply was a Shermanesque statement to my boss, basically saying I was not interested but to tell HR that I would be happy to run for "Engineer of the Year Award 20xx." My boss didn't care much but told me that HR said they did not have that award, and no answer as to why they didn't. At least they did not tell us that the award existed but I was not allowed to participate!
• banned1 9y ago
  This reminds me of a special award that some folks that were part of a [special ethnic group] wanted me to compete for. It was "[special ethnic group] Engineer of the Year Award 20xx". My boss (who was not part of [special ethnic group]) sent me an email saying "Hey, there is this award thing that HR is doing and they say since you are of [special ethnicity] they want you to participate in." My reply was a Shermanesque statement to my boss, basically saying I was not interested but to tell HR that I would be happy to run for "Engineer of the Year Award 20xx." My boss didn't care much but told me that HR said they did not have that award, and no answer as to why they didn't. At least they did not tell us that the award existed but I was not allowed to participate!
• artilect 9y ago
  Quite obviously not a woman, looking at the picture. Hope other people don't think that's a woman.
  • dang 9y ago
    We've quite obviously banned this account. Would you please not do this here?
• moarrgan 9y ago
  I think that opinion pieces like this make tech seem inaccessible to a lot of women. I understand that she herself does not like being a "Woman in Tech," but I don't think that her proposed solution to the women in tech problem being throwing away the labels is the right way to go about it. The author seems to imply that what set her on her course to programming was that she was a tomboy, and that she "loved lots of really technical, computery things that only men know about… Teehee…" For some women, that is how they get into tech. And she's right, those aren't the women who need the support groups. They love the software or love being one-of-the-guys so much that they will not notice or deliberately ignore or tolerate or fight back personally against the harassment. They don't need any special support. The ones that need these support groups are the same ones that are deterred by articles like this. Some women go into tech DESPITE the fact that it is male dominated, not BECAUSE of it. They are the ones who read thinkpieces like this and say "if all women in tech are so against being woman-like, then maybe tech isn't for me."
• kevintb 9y ago
  It's fascinating that articles like these are kept on Hacker News, but others like tweets by Susan Fowler or the latest Github post by Coraline Ada are flagged for being "divisive" and "politcal".
  • throwawaymaroon 9y ago
    Don't worry, this one won't last long either.
• influnza 9y ago
  YES!! 100% agree. I hate these labels and after having moved to the US it is really difficult to stand against them. The environment is so pressing! I am meeting with my HR to talk about this, because we are having a meeting with one of our bosses and women in the org. I find it super discriminating. This article will help me argue my point!
• hullsean 9y ago
  wow i love this. thx Maria!
• yakult 9y ago
  This is a story about misaligned incentives and social status. Having the special programs lowers the social status of the demographic it targets, because it suggests those people are not good enough to climb the ladder through meritocratic means. At the time they do lower the hurdle for the demographic seeking to enter the industry and/or get ahead, fairly or otherwise. In otherwords, there is a tradeoff between social status and initial growth. Whether this is a favorable trade depends largely on where you sit. If you're high up already, you would likely prefer the programs to go away since they hurt your status by associating you with the low-status newbies while not giving you much. On the other hand if you've just submitted your resume on BigTechCo's website like a thousand others, it's much more likely to get read by a human if they have some kind of affirmative action program (at the cost of somebody else's resume not getting read by a human, of course). Once you get in, extra programs and mentorship would also be valuble. Finally, from the company's perspective, it just wants the statistics-illiterate social media diversity mob off its back while deviating as little from its current HR formulas as possible (since they obviously worked well enough to get them big enough to have to worry about this). This means it'll optimize for visibility and photo-ops and photogenic suit-clad female interns in its annual reports.
• eagsalazar2 9y ago
  I know this will never happen but I'd love it if people broke the terms "sexual harassment" or "sexism" into 3 different more specific descriptions of what happened to them: (1) I got hit on (2) I was discriminated against (3) I was sexually assaulted or coerced (1) is a lot different than (2) and (3) and a lot of the stories coming out lately basically boil down to (1), a dude was sexually attracted to a woman and he let her know he wanted to hook up with her (not including examples where there were threats or leverage was applied which would fall into (3)). (2) and (3) are clearly 100% unacceptable and should result in immediate firing and criminal investigation for (3). (1) OTOH reflects a normal and healthy human reality: men want to have sex with women. Men and women hook up via work intros all the time. That is ok and even good IMO. If we talk about (1) separately and without inflammatory language maybe we could as a society even come up with a set of appropriate norms and rules for how people should act on their attraction to each other.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    I have never heard anyone call (1) sexual harassment as long as it was handled in an appropriate manner, i.e. a. There was no power relationship involved. Don't try to hook up with your subordinates. That is extremely inappropriate. b. It was not excessively crass. Asking someone out for a drink is okay; asking them outright for sex is not. c. It was not done repeatedly in the face of rejection. Hitting on someone once to see if they are interested is okay; continuing to hit on them after you have been rejected is not.
    • eagsalazar2 9y ago
      I agree with your definition of inappropriate 100%. Don't agree that failing to be appropriate == sexual harassment. That there is a gap there is exactly what I'm calling out. Anyway, I never said (1) was always appropriate, I just said it was different than (2) and (3) and lumping them all together is polarizing and inflammatory. If I excused (1) at all the place I'm coming from is that the desire is healthy and normal and demonizing it and suppressing any sexual expression in the workplace is not productive and is simply not going to work in any case. If we talked about (1) separately without the polarizing language yeah there are definitely tons of ways idiots misbehave or nice guys just screw it up that we could probably improve on.
• Animats 9y ago
  I was discussing this today with a woman who works in tech in SF. She's had people try to harass her, but it doesn't bother her much; she's comfortable with pushing back. She's more upset about the startup she worked for tanking because the people running it were in their 40s and 50s and too slow-moving. Another woman I know works for a large software company that acquired her software startup. She does a lot of public speaking, despite being under 5' tall with a mousy voice. She hasn't had much harassment. But she's mostly in the US northeast, not SF. Another is a lawyer with a big law firm in Silicon Valley. She's had problems, but not really serious ones. She was originally not too comfortable with confrontation, and was a back-room lawyer drafting contracts. But once she started doing trial work, she became used to dealing with confrontation regularly, which improved her success at work. All three women are horse owners. That seems to help. Women who own horses are used to dealing with huge, powerful animals with strong personalities. The skills to deal with this seem to transfer. Bullies don't seem to be a major problem for horse people. (Years ago, when I had a horse at the Stanford barn, one of the high-school girls showed up after school and announced, in frustration, "I just do not understand teenage boys". I told her "watch the rooster for fifteen minutes and you'll figure it out." The barn had a rooster and several chickens. The rooster made a lot of noise, chased the chickens around, and didn't accomplish much. A rooster is testosterone driving a brain the size of a peanut. The girl came back later and said "Now I get teenage boys.")
• tuna-piano 9y ago
  1. Take a look at this chart[1] and let me know (1) Which professions have a gender diversity problem? and (2) Given that the population's gender ratio is ~50/50, which male stone mason (99.5% male) do you want to be a preschool teacher (97% female) and which preschool teacher do you want to make into a stone mason? I've seen a bizarre thing with a certain portion of women in tech, which this article kind of alludes to. Instead of being interested in new technology or being really interested in tech itself, some number are interested in "women in tech". It's bizarre, and I believe a symptom of this effort to bring women into tech by emphasizing that they're women. Women/Men/Whatever should just be people in tech, stop focusing on gender and get to work. [1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
  • odiroot 9y ago
    AFAIR the real statistics work even more in your favour. In many countries many women don't join the work force so the gender ratio is not 50/50 (even ignoring that in multiple populations men outnumber women until around 40 year mark). One anecdote: throughout my childhood I didn't know men are allowed into education because 100% of my teachers until university were women. On the other hand pretty much until 2000s basically all the police force were men.
• joe4353444 9y ago
  If you don't show your code it's hard to take you seriously especially when you are making a social opinion.
• ansi7120 9y ago
  I learned long ago that as an Asian(not White, but...) male working in technology, you are not to express your honest thought on issues with a designated "victim" class, unless you're a part of the class. Words have consequences and you can't share your intent with a toneless text. Not only are you easy to be misunderstood, but oftentimes inadvertently insult. No, not everyone is thin-skinned or "snowflake" as a denigrating term, but non-zero are. I think many people learned this when Adria Richards got two engineers fired at the PyCon on an inoffensive(subjective) joke. Nowadays, I self-censor more than ever. I've seen friends, people in my networks, or people two-degrees-apart getting torn apart by expressing their opinion. I don't want to waste the lessons I've learned in proxy. I find myself either avoid getting in the situation with "dangerous"(i.e., the "marginalized" group) people, or prefer people I trust when working with important/interesting project.(you can read high-profile instead). I may be stymying the junior developer girl's success by not giving her the opportunities she deserves by preferring "the guys" over her. Am I a part of the problem? Based on the lambastings on sexism in tech, I guess I am. In fact, I know I'm perpetuating the diversity problem, and I should be more inclusive. Of course, I do not harass and work professionally, but the risk is just too high. Despite low likelihood, the risk of being misunderstood just once is too high. The optimal strategy is to protect myself by eliminating any potential situation as much as I can. My only cowardly push-back is that I don't participate in "Asian-only" event, or the ilk that promotes exclusivity in the name of diversity, lest I perpetuate the issue. Even in HN where I've been active for half of decade I couldn't comment on my original account. Kudos to Maria(OP) with her expressions. I just wish I were as brave.