5 ms·

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 t

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.

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.