3 ms·

Building diversity is an important component of forward progress, since it engenders a broader experiential pool to draw from. In the case of gender, female de

Building diversity is an important component of forward progress, since it engenders a broader experiential pool to draw from. In the case of gender, female developers have been shut out of the industry for long enough that corrective action has to be taken to balance the scales. Until such time as that happens, "sex discrimination against men" is impossible.

coldtea 9y ago
>Building diversity is an important component of forward progress, since it engenders a broader experiential pool to draw from. Only the pool has to be created in the lower levels (education etc) not imposed at the company level with less good candidates favored just because of their sex. >Until such time as that happens, "sex discrimination against men" is impossible. It's very possible, if meritocracy is sidestepped, and the person who gets sidestepped is a man in favor of e.g. 50-50 parity with a woman. Unless the pool entering the workforce is 50-50 already, then 50-50 hiring requires discrimination.
- bovermyer 9y ago
  Gender is only one factor. It's what I focused on here because of context. Nationality, native language, childhood population density, and even hobby choices all play a part in experiential makeup. "Meritocracy" is almost always a flawed idea, because it relies on the principle of those in positions of authority choosing the best candidate for a given role; the key word here is "best." That's a subjective term, and usually favors a small set of criteria over a more holistic view. People, with some exceptions, are bad at seeing the big picture. With very few exceptions, I will always favor candidates with broader experience over those with narrow strengths.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >"Meritocracy" is almost always a flawed idea, because it relies on the principle of those in positions of authority choosing the best candidate for a given role; the key word here is "best." That's a subjective term, and usually favors a small set of criteria over a more holistic view. That's the whole idea. When you need a surgeon you don't need a specifically sexed, or colored, or whatever surgeon. You just need a person good at the "small set of criteria" of performing a surgery.
  - laythea 9y ago
    I completely disagree for reasons I already said above. Meritocracy is the basis of life. Including evolution. Men are better at some things and women are better at some things. And you know what? That's fine by me. Eg. Imagine if I was at the top of a burning building and my family needed rescued. I would want 5 men to try to save us, not 5 women. Does that make be sexist or normal minded? EDIT: and off course vice versa for tasks that women are best suited.
CryoLogic 9y ago
It is still descrimination. "Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually" - Merriam Webster Dictionary Please don't bend what the word means just because others do. If we have our own meanings for every word, than the words mean nothing.
- laythea 9y ago
  well said.
- bovermyer 9y ago
  Fair enough. But it's discrimination with a higher purpose.
  - hailk 9y ago
    I'd like to share a perspective based on an anecdote. The first company that I'd worked for had come to our college to hire interns. They wanted 2. I'd find out later that the CEO had intended one male hire and one female hire, but they ended up hiring 3 (all men) including me. Two of us that got hired were from financially poor background, had lived in tier 3 cities, went to underfunded-corrupt schools with bad educators (as was common in the region we were from), had taken out huge education loans and were possibly the only source of retirement income for our parents (I'm based out of India, poor people have to rely on their children's success here). There were around 10-15 women in our batch. Most were from well off families, had well-educated parents who were also bankrolling their daughters' education, were from tier-1 cities and were exposed to tech long before us. They'd had better opportunities for growth even before joining college and only equal opportunities after, like the rest of us. In retrospect I feel that I had been lucky in a certain sense. Thankfully the recruiters weren't people with the >`But it's discrimination with a higher purpose.` mindset. It would've been a very difficult road to recovery for me otherwise. I would urge you to reconsider the notion that affirmative action is a sustainable solution for anything. It's hack. You only need to look at the current state of India's government, which over the course of more than 50 years of affirmative action (and other varying factors) has managed to convert the government sector into a cesspool of corruption and bad management.

coldtea 9y ago

>Building diversity is an important component of forward progress, since it engenders a broader experiential pool to draw from. Only the pool has to be created in the lower levels (education etc) not imposed at the company level with less good candidates favored just because of their sex. >Until such time as that happens, "sex discrimination against men" is impossible. It's very possible, if meritocracy is sidestepped, and the person who gets sidestepped is a man in favor of e.g. 50-50 parity with a woman. Unless the pool entering the workforce is 50-50 already, then 50-50 hiring requires discrimination.

bovermyer 9y ago
Gender is only one factor. It's what I focused on here because of context. Nationality, native language, childhood population density, and even hobby choices all play a part in experiential makeup. "Meritocracy" is almost always a flawed idea, because it relies on the principle of those in positions of authority choosing the best candidate for a given role; the key word here is "best." That's a subjective term, and usually favors a small set of criteria over a more holistic view. People, with some exceptions, are bad at seeing the big picture. With very few exceptions, I will always favor candidates with broader experience over those with narrow strengths.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >"Meritocracy" is almost always a flawed idea, because it relies on the principle of those in positions of authority choosing the best candidate for a given role; the key word here is "best." That's a subjective term, and usually favors a small set of criteria over a more holistic view. That's the whole idea. When you need a surgeon you don't need a specifically sexed, or colored, or whatever surgeon. You just need a person good at the "small set of criteria" of performing a surgery.
- laythea 9y ago
  I completely disagree for reasons I already said above. Meritocracy is the basis of life. Including evolution. Men are better at some things and women are better at some things. And you know what? That's fine by me. Eg. Imagine if I was at the top of a burning building and my family needed rescued. I would want 5 men to try to save us, not 5 women. Does that make be sexist or normal minded? EDIT: and off course vice versa for tasks that women are best suited.

CryoLogic 9y ago

It is still descrimination. "Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually" - Merriam Webster Dictionary Please don't bend what the word means just because others do. If we have our own meanings for every word, than the words mean nothing.

laythea 9y ago
well said.
bovermyer 9y ago
Fair enough. But it's discrimination with a higher purpose.
- hailk 9y ago
  I'd like to share a perspective based on an anecdote. The first company that I'd worked for had come to our college to hire interns. They wanted 2. I'd find out later that the CEO had intended one male hire and one female hire, but they ended up hiring 3 (all men) including me. Two of us that got hired were from financially poor background, had lived in tier 3 cities, went to underfunded-corrupt schools with bad educators (as was common in the region we were from), had taken out huge education loans and were possibly the only source of retirement income for our parents (I'm based out of India, poor people have to rely on their children's success here). There were around 10-15 women in our batch. Most were from well off families, had well-educated parents who were also bankrolling their daughters' education, were from tier-1 cities and were exposed to tech long before us. They'd had better opportunities for growth even before joining college and only equal opportunities after, like the rest of us. In retrospect I feel that I had been lucky in a certain sense. Thankfully the recruiters weren't people with the >`But it's discrimination with a higher purpose.` mindset. It would've been a very difficult road to recovery for me otherwise. I would urge you to reconsider the notion that affirmative action is a sustainable solution for anything. It's hack. You only need to look at the current state of India's government, which over the course of more than 50 years of affirmative action (and other varying factors) has managed to convert the government sector into a cesspool of corruption and bad management.