6 ms·

> Women account for 50 percent of the company’s engineering leadership team Surely this isn't some coincidence. How does one achieve this without some degree o

> Women account for 50 percent of the company’s engineering leadership team Surely this isn't some coincidence. How does one achieve this without some degree of sexism?

abalone 9y ago
Seriously? I’m sure you’re first to comment about the inherent sexism in 90% male engineering leadership teams. Companies that focus on seeking out qualified talent from underrepresented groups have a competitive advantage, by exploiting the inherent prejudice in their competitors to access an undervalued talent pool. This in turn attracts even overrepresented talent that is motivated to work for teams with these principles.
- annexrichmond 9y ago
  No, I'm just not one to declare inherent sexism if it's less than 50%
  - abalone 9y ago
    But you do if it’s 50%, the actual population distribution. Yeah, not a sexist standard at all.
    - annexrichmond 9y ago
      75% of teachers are women; 84% of nurses are women; 82% of vets are women; 90% of landscapers are men; 88% of truckers are men; 88% of miners are men; 97% of loggers are men; 48% of newspaper publishers are women; 42% of pharmacists are women; 47% of real estate agents are women; 27% of "Computer systems design and related services" are women Okay, so CS-related jobs clearly are far from the worse in terms of gender ratio. Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries. I'm not convinced that this industry is inherently more or less sexist than others, which is why I included some jobs where it's actually close to 50%. Also, you can't just compare to the general population, because you simply aren't hiring from the general population, as you are hiring people with a specific skillset. That is why many low skilled jobs that aren't labor-intensive are close to 50% Statistics are from: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm edit: formatting and grammar
      - abalone 9y ago
        > 75% of teachers are women; 84% of nurses are women... > Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries. You should listen more.[1][2] [1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination-in-healthcare/ https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mo...
        annexrichmond 9y ago
        glad you brought those up. Sexism can indeed happen anywhere. No one is saying it doesn't happen (I hope) However it's not conclusive whether sexism towards men or sexism towards women has made the ratios the way they are. Surely it's some factor, but how much? Many professions that used to be nearly 100% male are now more than 50% women, while some that used to be nearly 100% has stayed well below 50% women. Why is that? Sexism doesn't explain it for me because that implies people in some professions are inherently more sexist than others and I'm not convinced of that
        abalone 9y ago
        Look, you seem earnest here. It’s really not a big mystery. Generally, lower paying more menial jobs have been “women’s work” while men have monopolized the higher paying jobs. There are exceptions, status is a factor as well, but generally men have worked together as a class to monopolize the most desirable work. Same for white people. Look for money and status and you’ll find a fairly strong pattern across industries.
- CryoLogic 9y ago
  He has a point if just by the math. I get it you want to support women, but many companies do discriminate against perfectly qualified men in order to get that. There is a far smaller supply of qualified women in engineering and engineering leadership right now. I've been on a team before where one member was adamant about throwing out resumes from white men for the sake of diversity. I know it happens. So yes, the company probably did partake in sexism and discrimination to get there. Otherwise they are very lucky and a statistical outlier when it comes to qualified female applicants applying.
  - abalone 9y ago
    You offer no evidence, only unsourced anecdotes. Reaching out to underrepresented groups is not the same as discriminating against massively overrepresented groups. How likely are women to apply to organizations that reflect status quo sexist attitudes? A reputation for fairness can act as a beacon for undervalued talent.
    - CryoLogic 9y ago
      You really require evidence that there are less women engineers? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bls+software+engineers+by+gender http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bls+software+engineers+by+gender
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    It’s really disappointing to see organistions legitimize discrimination in their efforts to support diversity for the PR/talent acquisition signaling. Actively discriminating against white men is no different than discriminating against other races and genders. I too have seen what you’ve described take place.
    - clay_the_ripper 9y ago
      I think you need to familiarize yourself with employment law. Specifically the idea of a protected class: Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members. https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html The idea that men are being discriminated against is a farce.
maybeiambatman 9y ago
You don't have to be sexist to attract women in leadership. Women engineers aren't rare by absolute numbers, but rare as a % portion of total engineering leaders. If they promise and deliver on a culture where women in leadership can thrive and attempt to recruit smart women, then more women will join. Success breeds success.
- annexrichmond 9y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Having trouble reconciling it with my reasoning though, which is: if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist than everyone else
  - abalone 9y ago
    > if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist You have simply defined “overrepresentation” in a sexist manner (50% women).
    - annexrichmond 9y ago
      overrepresented given some pool. Do you have data that suggests said pool is 50%, instead of replying to all my comments and calling me sexist?
      - abalone 9y ago
        “In 1970, only 7.6% of physicians were female. Today, approximately 30% of full time physicians are women and about 50% of medical school students are female. The vast improvement in statistics is not only promising but also inspiring for other divisions of the workforce that have not seen that quick of an improvement. However, upon diving deeper into statistics, it’s clear that gender still plays an unfair role in the success of a doctor. Between 80 to 90 percent of leadership roles in medicine, like medical school deans, are filled by men...”[1] Your concept of a “pool” is as sexist as thinking that a hospital with more than 7.6% women physicians in 1970 was a result of discrimination against men. The advance of women in medicine is not an “over representation”. It is closing the gap on underrepresentation due to systemic sexism (with still more work to do). This is beginning to happening in CS and other high wage fields traditionally reserved as men’s work. Your argument merely seeks to bastardize and turn the very terminology of sexism against this effort. [1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination-in-healthcare/ https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

> Women account for 50 percent of the company’s engineering leadership team Surely this isn't some coincidence. How does one achieve this without some degree of sexism?

abalone 9y ago

Seriously? I’m sure you’re first to comment about the inherent sexism in 90% male engineering leadership teams. Companies that focus on seeking out qualified talent from underrepresented groups have a competitive advantage, by exploiting the inherent prejudice in their competitors to access an undervalued talent pool. This in turn attracts even overrepresented talent that is motivated to work for teams with these principles.

annexrichmond 9y ago
No, I'm just not one to declare inherent sexism if it's less than 50%
- abalone 9y ago
  But you do if it’s 50%, the actual population distribution. Yeah, not a sexist standard at all.
  - annexrichmond 9y ago
    75% of teachers are women; 84% of nurses are women; 82% of vets are women; 90% of landscapers are men; 88% of truckers are men; 88% of miners are men; 97% of loggers are men; 48% of newspaper publishers are women; 42% of pharmacists are women; 47% of real estate agents are women; 27% of "Computer systems design and related services" are women Okay, so CS-related jobs clearly are far from the worse in terms of gender ratio. Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries. I'm not convinced that this industry is inherently more or less sexist than others, which is why I included some jobs where it's actually close to 50%. Also, you can't just compare to the general population, because you simply aren't hiring from the general population, as you are hiring people with a specific skillset. That is why many low skilled jobs that aren't labor-intensive are close to 50% Statistics are from: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm edit: formatting and grammar
    - abalone 9y ago
      > 75% of teachers are women; 84% of nurses are women... > Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries. You should listen more.[1][2] [1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination-in-healthcare/ https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mo...
      - annexrichmond 9y ago
        glad you brought those up. Sexism can indeed happen anywhere. No one is saying it doesn't happen (I hope) However it's not conclusive whether sexism towards men or sexism towards women has made the ratios the way they are. Surely it's some factor, but how much? Many professions that used to be nearly 100% male are now more than 50% women, while some that used to be nearly 100% has stayed well below 50% women. Why is that? Sexism doesn't explain it for me because that implies people in some professions are inherently more sexist than others and I'm not convinced of that
        abalone 9y ago
        Look, you seem earnest here. It’s really not a big mystery. Generally, lower paying more menial jobs have been “women’s work” while men have monopolized the higher paying jobs. There are exceptions, status is a factor as well, but generally men have worked together as a class to monopolize the most desirable work. Same for white people. Look for money and status and you’ll find a fairly strong pattern across industries.
CryoLogic 9y ago
He has a point if just by the math. I get it you want to support women, but many companies do discriminate against perfectly qualified men in order to get that. There is a far smaller supply of qualified women in engineering and engineering leadership right now. I've been on a team before where one member was adamant about throwing out resumes from white men for the sake of diversity. I know it happens. So yes, the company probably did partake in sexism and discrimination to get there. Otherwise they are very lucky and a statistical outlier when it comes to qualified female applicants applying.
- abalone 9y ago
  You offer no evidence, only unsourced anecdotes. Reaching out to underrepresented groups is not the same as discriminating against massively overrepresented groups. How likely are women to apply to organizations that reflect status quo sexist attitudes? A reputation for fairness can act as a beacon for undervalued talent.
  - CryoLogic 9y ago
    You really require evidence that there are less women engineers? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bls+software+engineers+by+gender http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bls+software+engineers+by+gender
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  It’s really disappointing to see organistions legitimize discrimination in their efforts to support diversity for the PR/talent acquisition signaling. Actively discriminating against white men is no different than discriminating against other races and genders. I too have seen what you’ve described take place.
  - clay_the_ripper 9y ago
    I think you need to familiarize yourself with employment law. Specifically the idea of a protected class: Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members. https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html The idea that men are being discriminated against is a farce.

maybeiambatman 9y ago

You don't have to be sexist to attract women in leadership. Women engineers aren't rare by absolute numbers, but rare as a % portion of total engineering leaders. If they promise and deliver on a culture where women in leadership can thrive and attempt to recruit smart women, then more women will join. Success breeds success.

annexrichmond 9y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Having trouble reconciling it with my reasoning though, which is: if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist than everyone else
- abalone 9y ago
  > if some group of people are overrepresented in some category, it is less likely to be a coincidence; i.e., I doubt it's because the people there are just less sexist You have simply defined “overrepresentation” in a sexist manner (50% women).
  - annexrichmond 9y ago
    overrepresented given some pool. Do you have data that suggests said pool is 50%, instead of replying to all my comments and calling me sexist?
    - abalone 9y ago
      “In 1970, only 7.6% of physicians were female. Today, approximately 30% of full time physicians are women and about 50% of medical school students are female. The vast improvement in statistics is not only promising but also inspiring for other divisions of the workforce that have not seen that quick of an improvement. However, upon diving deeper into statistics, it’s clear that gender still plays an unfair role in the success of a doctor. Between 80 to 90 percent of leadership roles in medicine, like medical school deans, are filled by men...”[1] Your concept of a “pool” is as sexist as thinking that a hospital with more than 7.6% women physicians in 1970 was a result of discrimination against men. The advance of women in medicine is not an “over representation”. It is closing the gap on underrepresentation due to systemic sexism (with still more work to do). This is beginning to happening in CS and other high wage fields traditionally reserved as men’s work. Your argument merely seeks to bastardize and turn the very terminology of sexism against this effort. [1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination-in-healthcare/ https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]