7 ms·

I consider myself a feminist and progressive, but utterances like this sort of test my wokeness and make me feel weary. >The fact that our mostly female staff

I consider myself a feminist and progressive, but utterances like this sort of test my wokeness and make me feel weary. >The fact that our mostly female staff and I have created a show where most of the voices are men is interesting and, frankly, disturbing. It's disturbing that your female staff doesn't produce content in the way you want? What am I supposed to take away from this?

rectang 8y ago
As an ally, I think this post is pretty interesting in terms of the efficacy of programs which increase inclusion and their projected impact along a variety of metrics. I despair at having a decent conversation about it on HN, though. :(
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I'm a woman. FWIW, when I have been on email lists where the population was mostly female, men still dominated the conversation. The dirty little secret is that an awful lot of women reinforce the male dominant status quo. Women often aligned themselves with the dominant male voice on the list and gave anyone hell who dared stand up to him. This often meant I was a target of such behavior.
  - rectang 8y ago
    So, the data from the story and your both hypothesis suggest that parity in representation alone won't in and of itself result in parity along other axes, like proportion of airtime. And thus, other initiatives would be required to move the needle on those other axes. This comports with what we already know about the importance of female role models.
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      I don't think role models are enough. I think women need stronger rights. I'm not sure what that would look like. But I think there is a power issue here with very deep roots, such deep roots that merely letting women get paid jobs doesn't fix it per se. I'm frankly tired of my incredibly broken life. I'm feeling like all this shit is just unfixable.
      - rectang 8y ago
        Progress comes after burning out one generation of idealists after another. It won't be "fixed" in your lifetime or mine, but it's getting better. > I don't think role models are enough. I think women need stronger rights. Absolutely. Proportionate representation, stronger rights, role models, and more. (And that, awakeasleep, is the takeaway of the article.)
        DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I'm not an idealist. But I'm pretty damn burned out at the moment.
        rectang 8y ago
        I hear you. It's natural to feel that way. You've made some memorable posts, though -- in a forum where ideas are contended, rather than an echo chamber. Thank you.
        BadassFractal 8y ago
        What stronger rights do you think would move the needle in this kind of situation?
        itronitron 8y ago
        Organizations are filled with people that support its power structure even when the people in power do things that are counter to the organization's goals or mission. The needle will probably only be moved by organizations that support diversity and are able to out-perform others.
        BadassFractal 8y ago
        Completely agreed, however, that doesn't answer my question. I'm still trying to educate myself about what stronger rights are missing that would make a difference in the parity along the various axes discussed above.
  - acjohnson55 8y ago
    > The dirty little secret is that an awful lot of women reinforce the male dominant status quo. See also the white female Trump vote dynamic, when they could have elected a white woman. But I say that somewhat facetiously because there's nothing special about that. A similar dynamic exists anywhere identities, privilege, disadvantage, and circumstance don't neatly align. When the white woman vote is brought up, I often say, "I bet there's a pretty stark divide between white women married to white men versus all other white women". Identity can't be deconstructed in neat little linear slices. And bias isn't just something oppressors do to the opposed -- it's systemic and universal. We're mostly all in this together, even though we gain from or suffer the consequences in different ways.
skybrian 8y ago
I think the lesson is that just like any other goal, if you want to get a certain result you have to actually keep track of how well you're doing and look for ways to do better. You can't just be "not sexist" and hope everything works out because you're so woke. Metrics are useful, Goodhart's law notwithstanding.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  Blind leading the blind without metrics.
- Raj7k 8y ago
  Yes, couldn't agree more. Apart from it is also important for women to come ahead and take the ownership and intiative to solve such issues.
scott_s 8y ago
I’m confused by your confusion. Glass assumed him and his staff, which is mostly female, would produce more shows that gave more voices to women. They did not. That means they are part of the problem (having listened to the show for over a decade, I’m confident him and his staff do consider it a problem), which is always disturbing to realize.
- manfredo 8y ago
  How is it surprising (let alone disturbing) that women and men employed in the same capacity at the same company produce the same results? That's what I'm still not getting. Why would it be reasonable to assume that a man will perform differently than a woman in the same role (let alone to be so certain of this to a degree that evidence to the contrary is "disturbing")?
  - scott_s 8y ago
    Because it is a sexist outcome: significantly more men have a voice (literally!) in a general interest radio show where just about any story is fair game. It is surprising because the show is largely made by woman. I imagine it is disturbing for Glass because I assume he felt him and his staff were immune to a sexist outcome.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      I don't think that it's at all surprising. We do, after all, live in an extremely sexist society. In order to achieve gender balance, staff would need to be sexist, in the sense of favoring underrepresented female voices. And that would be a good thing.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      I think it's important to think about the trends and averages in the broader society before levying accusations of sexism. If a bank's male customers have higher average account balances than the average woman that holds an account, is it fair to call the bank sexist? If a publishing company hires mostly female publishers is it a sexist company? I'd argue no in both cases. In both scenarios the disparate outcome likely stems from broader trends in society - higher incomes among men, higher readership among women. It's entirely possible and definitely worth discussing whether these trends are influenced by sexism - but that very different than calling our hypothetical bank or publishing company. An organization or process is sexist if it exerts unequal treatment on the basis of gender. It's entirely possible for a completely unbiased process to create an outcome with gender disparities. This American Life isn't one of the primary NPR podcasts to which I listen, but if it follows the trend of other NPR podcasts it probably draws more heavily on subject matter experts (e.g. university professors) and leadership positions in private enterprises than the rest of the population. These occupations, at least the latter, are disproportionately occupied by men. One could argue that the bias towards subject matter experts is sexist, but that seems fairly weak and indirect unless it can be demonstrated that the choice of interviewing these people is motivated by a desire to interview more men than women. One could also argue that the podcast should stop its focus on subject matter experts - but that would fundamentally change the nature of the podcast, essentially making it a different product.
roenxi 8y ago
Also an interesting question; does this mean we can rule out sexism as a contributing factor to men getting more airtime? It appears unlikely that a mostly female staff is suffering from delusions of female incompetence. There are many reasons a system might be biased that are not attributed to prejudice.
- rectang 8y ago
  No, because there's a competing hypothesis: women can be sexist too. I really wish we could get away from "sexist/not-sexist", "racist/not-racist", "bigoted/not-bigoted" binaries. Every human is prejudiced -- we're designed that way by evolution.
- lucisferre 8y ago
  Or that women can be sexist too. That they can pick up the unconscious bias towards men inherent in much of our society and apply it as easily as any man can.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
scubaguy 8y ago
The charitable interpretation of that sentence is that "There's no reason for there to be more men than women". It begs the question "Why do men get so much airtime?"

rectang 8y ago

As an ally, I think this post is pretty interesting in terms of the efficacy of programs which increase inclusion and their projected impact along a variety of metrics. I despair at having a decent conversation about it on HN, though. :(

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I'm a woman. FWIW, when I have been on email lists where the population was mostly female, men still dominated the conversation. The dirty little secret is that an awful lot of women reinforce the male dominant status quo. Women often aligned themselves with the dominant male voice on the list and gave anyone hell who dared stand up to him. This often meant I was a target of such behavior.
- rectang 8y ago
  So, the data from the story and your both hypothesis suggest that parity in representation alone won't in and of itself result in parity along other axes, like proportion of airtime. And thus, other initiatives would be required to move the needle on those other axes. This comports with what we already know about the importance of female role models.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I don't think role models are enough. I think women need stronger rights. I'm not sure what that would look like. But I think there is a power issue here with very deep roots, such deep roots that merely letting women get paid jobs doesn't fix it per se. I'm frankly tired of my incredibly broken life. I'm feeling like all this shit is just unfixable.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Progress comes after burning out one generation of idealists after another. It won't be "fixed" in your lifetime or mine, but it's getting better. > I don't think role models are enough. I think women need stronger rights. Absolutely. Proportionate representation, stronger rights, role models, and more. (And that, awakeasleep, is the takeaway of the article.)
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        I'm not an idealist. But I'm pretty damn burned out at the moment.
        rectang 8y ago
        I hear you. It's natural to feel that way. You've made some memorable posts, though -- in a forum where ideas are contended, rather than an echo chamber. Thank you.
      - BadassFractal 8y ago
        What stronger rights do you think would move the needle in this kind of situation?
        itronitron 8y ago
        Organizations are filled with people that support its power structure even when the people in power do things that are counter to the organization's goals or mission. The needle will probably only be moved by organizations that support diversity and are able to out-perform others.
        BadassFractal 8y ago
        Completely agreed, however, that doesn't answer my question. I'm still trying to educate myself about what stronger rights are missing that would make a difference in the parity along the various axes discussed above.
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  > The dirty little secret is that an awful lot of women reinforce the male dominant status quo. See also the white female Trump vote dynamic, when they could have elected a white woman. But I say that somewhat facetiously because there's nothing special about that. A similar dynamic exists anywhere identities, privilege, disadvantage, and circumstance don't neatly align. When the white woman vote is brought up, I often say, "I bet there's a pretty stark divide between white women married to white men versus all other white women". Identity can't be deconstructed in neat little linear slices. And bias isn't just something oppressors do to the opposed -- it's systemic and universal. We're mostly all in this together, even though we gain from or suffer the consequences in different ways.

skybrian 8y ago

I think the lesson is that just like any other goal, if you want to get a certain result you have to actually keep track of how well you're doing and look for ways to do better. You can't just be "not sexist" and hope everything works out because you're so woke. Metrics are useful, Goodhart's law notwithstanding.

s-shellfish 8y ago
Blind leading the blind without metrics.
Raj7k 8y ago
Yes, couldn't agree more. Apart from it is also important for women to come ahead and take the ownership and intiative to solve such issues.

scott_s 8y ago

I’m confused by your confusion. Glass assumed him and his staff, which is mostly female, would produce more shows that gave more voices to women. They did not. That means they are part of the problem (having listened to the show for over a decade, I’m confident him and his staff do consider it a problem), which is always disturbing to realize.

manfredo 8y ago
How is it surprising (let alone disturbing) that women and men employed in the same capacity at the same company produce the same results? That's what I'm still not getting. Why would it be reasonable to assume that a man will perform differently than a woman in the same role (let alone to be so certain of this to a degree that evidence to the contrary is "disturbing")?
- scott_s 8y ago
  Because it is a sexist outcome: significantly more men have a voice (literally!) in a general interest radio show where just about any story is fair game. It is surprising because the show is largely made by woman. I imagine it is disturbing for Glass because I assume he felt him and his staff were immune to a sexist outcome.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I don't think that it's at all surprising. We do, after all, live in an extremely sexist society. In order to achieve gender balance, staff would need to be sexist, in the sense of favoring underrepresented female voices. And that would be a good thing.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    I think it's important to think about the trends and averages in the broader society before levying accusations of sexism. If a bank's male customers have higher average account balances than the average woman that holds an account, is it fair to call the bank sexist? If a publishing company hires mostly female publishers is it a sexist company? I'd argue no in both cases. In both scenarios the disparate outcome likely stems from broader trends in society - higher incomes among men, higher readership among women. It's entirely possible and definitely worth discussing whether these trends are influenced by sexism - but that very different than calling our hypothetical bank or publishing company. An organization or process is sexist if it exerts unequal treatment on the basis of gender. It's entirely possible for a completely unbiased process to create an outcome with gender disparities. This American Life isn't one of the primary NPR podcasts to which I listen, but if it follows the trend of other NPR podcasts it probably draws more heavily on subject matter experts (e.g. university professors) and leadership positions in private enterprises than the rest of the population. These occupations, at least the latter, are disproportionately occupied by men. One could argue that the bias towards subject matter experts is sexist, but that seems fairly weak and indirect unless it can be demonstrated that the choice of interviewing these people is motivated by a desire to interview more men than women. One could also argue that the podcast should stop its focus on subject matter experts - but that would fundamentally change the nature of the podcast, essentially making it a different product.

roenxi 8y ago

Also an interesting question; does this mean we can rule out sexism as a contributing factor to men getting more airtime? It appears unlikely that a mostly female staff is suffering from delusions of female incompetence. There are many reasons a system might be biased that are not attributed to prejudice.

rectang 8y ago
No, because there's a competing hypothesis: women can be sexist too. I really wish we could get away from "sexist/not-sexist", "racist/not-racist", "bigoted/not-bigoted" binaries. Every human is prejudiced -- we're designed that way by evolution.
lucisferre 8y ago
Or that women can be sexist too. That they can pick up the unconscious bias towards men inherent in much of our society and apply it as easily as any man can.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

scubaguy 8y ago

The charitable interpretation of that sentence is that "There's no reason for there to be more men than women". It begs the question "Why do men get so much airtime?"