17 ms·

>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

• 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.