4 ms·

I agree with you broadly, but I think there are a few nuances here that make all of the difference. The first is that I feel that text is an AWFUL medium for c

by Niksko 9y ago

I agree with you broadly, but I think there are a few nuances here that make all of the difference. The first is that I feel that text is an AWFUL medium for communication for these sorts of discussions and criticisms, unless expertly crafted (as this article was, I feel). Numerous times I've had arguments with friends via text that get out of hand because of subtle misinterpretations of intent and phrasing, where as in person they're much more civilised. You can draw a few conclusions here: either we suck at communicating via text and need to get a lot better, or discussions of this nature are better had face to face, where intent and nuance of expression are easier (for many) to judge. What feels like normal discourse and 'clinical' (for lack of a better word) discussion to you may not feel the same way to others, simply because short-form text is an imperfect medium. The other point of contention I have is that it's fine to treat diversity programs with scientific rigour, but you also need to allow for the proper timescales in which to study the effects. If you subscribe to an intersectional feminist viewpoint, then it stands to reason that you need to observe the success or failure of such diversity programs over a generational timescale in order to assess their efficacy. Change on that scale simply isn't going to be visible over a one or two year period before you decide the diversity program doesn't work and you axe it.

roenxi 9y ago
So, I took a few goes to write this. It isn't my money and I certainly support companies being able to run or not run their own speculative diversity programs as they want. That being said, corporations and/or the business world aren't really the appropriate place for social experiments that take a generation to take effect. They are an excellent tool for taking scarce resources and divvying them up short term with value added. There seems something very questionable about the idea a corporation embarking on a generational experiment to bring about social change if they have no evidence on it's efficacy. I'd probably call that small-scale political action funded by other people's money if I saw it in a public corporation, and would much prefer to see less of it. I'm a fan of evidence-based management. I mean, the gender ratio's in tech are pretty lopsided; and we have enough stories to know there is outrageous behavior afoot. Surely there are some low hanging wins that can be hit a bit more quickly than 20 years out.
- dcow 9y ago
  One of the points in the essay was that statistically the tech industry is not the worst or even any worse than other industries in the harassment/sexism department. The difference (I'm interpreting/paraphrasing slightly here) is that the tech industry is high-paying and idealistic (for many) so it receives more intense scrutiny. E.g. there is a gender imbalance in nursing but you don't have The Atlantic posing smear-ish articles about the industry and groups of males storming the nets with social pitch forks. I agree with you: our economic system is not the appropriate spot for social reform. Our economic system in America is capitalism. Maybe when I was younger–but I no longer have any expectation that a business will perform any altruistic act that does not align with its business model unless it's a PR stunt or the program is budgeted as employee quality of life (so it is effectively diced as employee comp). I'm honestly curious what your idea of some low-hanging wins that make sense for a capitalist business to explore would be. Care to elaborate?

by Niksko 9y ago

roenxi 9y ago

So, I took a few goes to write this. It isn't my money and I certainly support companies being able to run or not run their own speculative diversity programs as they want. That being said, corporations and/or the business world aren't really the appropriate place for social experiments that take a generation to take effect. They are an excellent tool for taking scarce resources and divvying them up short term with value added. There seems something very questionable about the idea a corporation embarking on a generational experiment to bring about social change if they have no evidence on it's efficacy. I'd probably call that small-scale political action funded by other people's money if I saw it in a public corporation, and would much prefer to see less of it. I'm a fan of evidence-based management. I mean, the gender ratio's in tech are pretty lopsided; and we have enough stories to know there is outrageous behavior afoot. Surely there are some low hanging wins that can be hit a bit more quickly than 20 years out.

dcow 9y ago
One of the points in the essay was that statistically the tech industry is not the worst or even any worse than other industries in the harassment/sexism department. The difference (I'm interpreting/paraphrasing slightly here) is that the tech industry is high-paying and idealistic (for many) so it receives more intense scrutiny. E.g. there is a gender imbalance in nursing but you don't have The Atlantic posing smear-ish articles about the industry and groups of males storming the nets with social pitch forks. I agree with you: our economic system is not the appropriate spot for social reform. Our economic system in America is capitalism. Maybe when I was younger–but I no longer have any expectation that a business will perform any altruistic act that does not align with its business model unless it's a PR stunt or the program is budgeted as employee quality of life (so it is effectively diced as employee comp). I'm honestly curious what your idea of some low-hanging wins that make sense for a capitalist business to explore would be. Care to elaborate?