4 ms·

I'm genuinely curious here: how? Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups? If we're not going to genericize all app

I'm genuinely curious here: how? Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups? If we're not going to genericize all appeals (thus introducing the built in cultural bias of appealing to most people, i.e. the dominant group) don't we have to say "this thing that is unique to your cultural group is why you should be interested"? That sounds like it almost must include some stereotype. That doesn't mean patronizing, but it does mean making some assumptions about the group in question and why they might be interested.

1_2__4 9y ago
It's almost as if the game is built specifically to be unwinnable. What an odd coincidence.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  This isn't a game, and it isn't about winning. The fact that you see it that way is "what an odd coincidence".
ucaetano 9y ago
"Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups?" No, in a world where minority groups are set apart, appealing to them can be as simple as not setting them apart, by no harassing, abusing, discriminating, etc. You don't need pink office chairs to make an office space welcoming for women. You just need NOT to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. Simple stuff, really.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above is a different problem. In that situation we are trying to not be hostile to a specific group. That's really a much easier problem to identify (not solve) because hostile behavior is hostile behavior, no matter who you are. It's incredibly important to solve that problem, but there we really have a universal solutions: treat people with respect, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Build policies that enforce that respect and hopefully build to a cultural shift where respect is assumed. But "appealing to minority groups" is another problem entirely. We're assuming that we have a problem that is due to some inherent bias in the way our culture has portrayed or encouraged a behavior. In this case that boys are more interested in tech because they got "STEM toys" as kids or that the toys that are available appeal more to boys or that the messaging surrounding tech is unconsciously biased towards boys. None of those problems involve being hostile towards girls. We also assume (correctly or incorrectly) that adjusting that bias could bring a better balance to this area. That involves targeting a message or policy to a specific group. In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" and are presumably trying to say "how do we get girls more interested in technology". I would argue that "don't be hostile" is only part of the problem, it does not address inherent cultural bias. If we assume that bias exists, then we need to make assumptions about girls and build solutions accordingly.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows us that more women get engineering degrees and fewer computer science degrees since 1980? It shows us that more women get degrees period, actually. It's also showing us a snapshot in time: women between the ages of 18-22. That doesn't really address at all the problem of "girls before 18". Girls have only recently drawn even with boys in attendance in high school stem classes, and still lag quite a bit in computer science. And minorities do even worse [1]. Anecdotaly, my experience also bears this out. The First Robotics clubs in my area (aimed at ages 9-14) are majority boys, despite several teams (including my daughter's school) being coached by female engineers specifically hoping to encourage more girls. I don't think it's the wrong question. [1]: https://ngcproject.org/statistics https://ngcproject.org/statistics
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        > I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows that women were interested in tech, but something happened in the 80's that mostly killed that interest. So the problem isn't that females aren't interested, but that something kills that interest. What is that?
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Most workplaces have been doing this "simple stuff" for decades and the problem appears to persist.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    No, they've been putting it on paper. There's a long distance between that and actual welcoming workplaces.

1_2__4 9y ago

It's almost as if the game is built specifically to be unwinnable. What an odd coincidence.

ucaetano 9y ago
This isn't a game, and it isn't about winning. The fact that you see it that way is "what an odd coincidence".

ucaetano 9y ago

"Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups?" No, in a world where minority groups are set apart, appealing to them can be as simple as not setting them apart, by no harassing, abusing, discriminating, etc. You don't need pink office chairs to make an office space welcoming for women. You just need NOT to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. Simple stuff, really.

stinkytaco 9y ago
The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above is a different problem. In that situation we are trying to not be hostile to a specific group. That's really a much easier problem to identify (not solve) because hostile behavior is hostile behavior, no matter who you are. It's incredibly important to solve that problem, but there we really have a universal solutions: treat people with respect, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Build policies that enforce that respect and hopefully build to a cultural shift where respect is assumed. But "appealing to minority groups" is another problem entirely. We're assuming that we have a problem that is due to some inherent bias in the way our culture has portrayed or encouraged a behavior. In this case that boys are more interested in tech because they got "STEM toys" as kids or that the toys that are available appeal more to boys or that the messaging surrounding tech is unconsciously biased towards boys. None of those problems involve being hostile towards girls. We also assume (correctly or incorrectly) that adjusting that bias could bring a better balance to this area. That involves targeting a message or policy to a specific group. In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" and are presumably trying to say "how do we get girls more interested in technology". I would argue that "don't be hostile" is only part of the problem, it does not address inherent cultural bias. If we assume that bias exists, then we need to make assumptions about girls and build solutions accordingly.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows us that more women get engineering degrees and fewer computer science degrees since 1980? It shows us that more women get degrees period, actually. It's also showing us a snapshot in time: women between the ages of 18-22. That doesn't really address at all the problem of "girls before 18". Girls have only recently drawn even with boys in attendance in high school stem classes, and still lag quite a bit in computer science. And minorities do even worse [1]. Anecdotaly, my experience also bears this out. The First Robotics clubs in my area (aimed at ages 9-14) are majority boys, despite several teams (including my daughter's school) being coached by female engineers specifically hoping to encourage more girls. I don't think it's the wrong question. [1]: https://ngcproject.org/statistics https://ngcproject.org/statistics
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows that women were interested in tech, but something happened in the 80's that mostly killed that interest. So the problem isn't that females aren't interested, but that something kills that interest. What is that?
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Most workplaces have been doing this "simple stuff" for decades and the problem appears to persist.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  No, they've been putting it on paper. There's a long distance between that and actual welcoming workplaces.