5 ms·

Brotopia: Analysis and Review

44 points by randomname2 8y ago

af3 8y ago
Thanks for sharing, nice analysis.
wjnc 8y ago
Ok, one thing against the 'data analysis' in OP: if Santa Clara is allegedly male-dominated then the better comparison is number of complaints per million women in the local labour force. The other obvious one is that complaints per capital possibly falls with income. Without correction for that, this offhand denial after a casual data browsing is too easy. My personal ethics suggest that any sector where business is done in sex clubs and hot tubs is shady, but who am I? It's like when Heineken had stocked fridges with beer for meetings. It's not directly female-unfriendly but the social dynamics of meetings change after a few beers. They stopped that a decade ago.
- naasking 8y ago
  I was about to post a similar point, that he's possibly comparing unequal demographics, and without controlling for that his numbers are probably not meaningful. Still, he makes plenty of other good points. And as for meetings in sex clubs, I have no doubt that this still occurs in plenty of other fields, even ones that aren't male dominated. The fact that Chang's book appears long on rumour and short on data is what should disqualify it from being taken seriously.
  - mhjas 8y ago
    > Still, he makes plenty of other good points. Could you summarize, or mention a few? Because I struggle to see much of any merit to the article. It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself. It continues with rhetorically embellished opinions about the book, which most of us haven't read. Then presents a bunch of numbers that we again don't know if they are particularly relevant. Finally it spends most of the rest of the article discussing other theories that the author prefers. I would expect an analysis like this at least partly present the theories discussed in the book in a relatively natural light to then discuss those theories.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself. I suggest reading the introduction to the book in Amazon. Plenty of "scare quotes" there too, just pushing an opposing narrative. Maybe the tone of the article is reflective of the book rather than a bias people seem all too quick to ascribe to the article's author (although the author is almost certainly biased too -- we all are). I'm not sure the article has embellished much given the introduction. The article actually points out the book's main bias, "Chang does not consider any alternative theses that might cause gender disparities in occupational sectors." People attempting to analyze an issue with a narrative already firmly in mind is all too common, and the signal to noise ratio on this subject been getting worse. This book appears to be more of the same. I've done a lot of reading on this issue, and the book's intro and this article reflect a common narrative that can explain only some of the data rather than following where the data leads. The article cites a few books by professional psychologists that discuss gender differences at length. That's where you'll find better data and better theories to explain the data. As for other good points in the article: 1. I think the article is correct to point out that tech is getting an unusual amount of attention given the gender disparities in other fields. I think people with a feminist agenda see tech as a big lever for social change because of how pervasive tech is in our lives. Adopting that agenda will have upsides and downsides, but we should always be wary of agendas, because they are by necessity blind to effects outside their narrow scope. This agenda is often couched in phrases like "diverse teams always outperform non-diverse teams". If that were true to any meaningful degree, then there would be no need for any explicit action on our part because compensation for diversity would reflect that. 2. The article is also correct to point out that redistributing work means taking women out of other sectors and displacing men to other sectors (although obviously hyperbolic in suggesting we just swap with nurses), and this change won't necessarily lead to better outcomes overall. Finally, consider the obvious question: why is it necessary to "break up" the boy's club in tech when we clearly didn't need any such call to break up the boy's clubs in medicine or law. Arguably, they were far more insular and sexist, but women broke into them anyway and achieved gender parity. But note that while those fields overall are roughly gender equal, the genders have still segregated themselves into various specializations, eg. surgery is still male dominant, pediatrics is female dominant. The sexism narrative can't explain this, but the works by the psychologists the article cites actually can. This is one among a few data points that tells me who is more closely pursuing the data, and who is pursuing a narrative. Anyway, I could trot out plenty of citations on this, and I have here on HN in the past, but there's little point. It almost always devolves into pointless squabbling.
- belorn 8y ago
  I would very much like to see some data that explore how much business is conducted outside of offices per industry sector and where. To me it seems about as common as merger deals being done while the people involved are stone drunk, which I assume must happen somewhere but can't possible be the norm.
- cultus 8y ago
  As the other poster said, this is a standard Quillete article. Incomplete information and faulty reasoning dressed up to discredit progressive causes, and science surrounding these issues. Yes, it should be incredibly obvious that fewer women produces fewer sexual harassment complaints. I bet welding doesn't have too many women complaining abut harassment or discrimination either. Quillete essentially a crypto, "respectable" outlet of the alt-right. I don't know whether this is a good book or not. It probably isn't. But the review is obviously an excuse to take a swipe at gender equality, while still acting smart and scientific.
danharaj 8y ago
Quillette consistently publishes truthy and dishonest articles pushing a counter-progressive narrative; bullshit in its most exquisite, hand crafted, artisanal form: just the right mix of data and distortion to make it a pain in the ass to refute unless you roll up your sleeves and look at the data yourself.
- Presquare 8y ago
  Sigh. This seems to be a common pattern on HN where users make very strong negative claims about some person/organisation without even attempting to justify it. I wonder if this is a conscious tactic where people who don't like some person/organisation attempt to attach negative emotions to it. Hoping that people unfamiliar with it would feel negatively about it, without really knowing why they feel that way. "I just remember someone saying that it is bad."
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Yes I'm obviously engaging in a misinformation campaign on hacker news. Or I'm sipping tea on sunday morning. Definitely the former. Well, why not both actually?
    - Presquare 8y ago
      Don't try to get away with sarcasm. Whether this is part of your secret masterplan, or a casual Sunday morning comment, is irrelevant. You referred to Quillette's articles as, "bullshit in its most exquisite, hand crafted, artisanal form". If you aren't willing to even attempt justifying such defamatory claims, don't make them.
      - danharaj 8y ago
        I am allowed to make comments without justifying them. I wholeheartedly acknowledge that I have done so. I even said why I wouldn't bother. I am not committing defamation. Have a good day :^)
  - 8y ago
craig_peacock 8y ago
Text book example of a well researched and qualified article! A much needed breath of fresh air, thank you...
adjkant 8y ago
So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source (on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without separation of type (say, by sexual harassment). That doesn't really show anything beyond the bias of the author. Not to mention the inherent problem with formal complaints vs actual number of incidents that is not discussed at all. As mentioned by others, no accounting for income or any other factors was done either. I wouldn't say any information of value lies in the "analysis" here. Not to say the book is validated, simply that this is clearly hit piece that's trying to disguise itself as a review from any point of neutrality.
- romanhn 8y ago
  Dust jacket refers to the book cover, not the author.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    Whoops, edited accordingly.
- bko 8y ago
  The author of Brotopia made the claim of a toxic environment without evidence. The burden or proof lies on the person making the claim. The author of the piece questions the claim with a single data source. Attacking his source doesn't somehow validate the author of Brotopia
  - adjkant 8y ago
    I said exactly that it doesn't validate the book in my post. But showing a single, very irrelevant stat is not a counterargument either.
malvosenior 8y ago
There are an awful lot of Harvard educated journalists complaining about male privileged nowadays. Chang probably makes more money than most of the techies she attacks in her book. She has her own national television show and now book that's being promoted in the mainstream media. Business Insider called her one of the top 100 influential people in tech. Pretty good for someone who can't code! It doesn't look like this so called discrimination has had any impact on her career.
- adjkant 8y ago
  What does her career have to do with any of this? Would you like to go the anecdota to data route or are you trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up? Either point doesn't seem very sound, and why be so roundabout with your point? Or are you simply trying to discredit something you disagree with by attacking the author?
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up? Yes. I'm using her own success as a direct refutation of her argument.
    - chipgap98 8y ago
      Your argument is that because one woman has had this level of success then gender bias doesn't exist?
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        My argument is that someone as privileged as Chang ought not sling mud at an entire industry and mark us a “brotopia”. I’m actually not ok with someone labeling me like that. Extra galling given that she has succeeded wildly in that very industry.
        danielam 8y ago
arcaster 8y ago
Glad to see more work from Quillette, strongly believe they're one of the only strong less-bias sources of objective journalism in our world today.
- aklemm 8y ago
  That’s like a liberal saying NPR is objective. There is no objective. They might be serious and mostly honest (just like NPR), but Quillette definitely has a bias.

44 points by randomname2 8y ago

af3 8y ago

Thanks for sharing, nice analysis.

wjnc 8y ago

Ok, one thing against the 'data analysis' in OP: if Santa Clara is allegedly male-dominated then the better comparison is number of complaints per million women in the local labour force. The other obvious one is that complaints per capital possibly falls with income. Without correction for that, this offhand denial after a casual data browsing is too easy. My personal ethics suggest that any sector where business is done in sex clubs and hot tubs is shady, but who am I? It's like when Heineken had stocked fridges with beer for meetings. It's not directly female-unfriendly but the social dynamics of meetings change after a few beers. They stopped that a decade ago.

naasking 8y ago
I was about to post a similar point, that he's possibly comparing unequal demographics, and without controlling for that his numbers are probably not meaningful. Still, he makes plenty of other good points. And as for meetings in sex clubs, I have no doubt that this still occurs in plenty of other fields, even ones that aren't male dominated. The fact that Chang's book appears long on rumour and short on data is what should disqualify it from being taken seriously.
- mhjas 8y ago
  > Still, he makes plenty of other good points. Could you summarize, or mention a few? Because I struggle to see much of any merit to the article. It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself. It continues with rhetorically embellished opinions about the book, which most of us haven't read. Then presents a bunch of numbers that we again don't know if they are particularly relevant. Finally it spends most of the rest of the article discussing other theories that the author prefers. I would expect an analysis like this at least partly present the theories discussed in the book in a relatively natural light to then discuss those theories.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself. I suggest reading the introduction to the book in Amazon. Plenty of "scare quotes" there too, just pushing an opposing narrative. Maybe the tone of the article is reflective of the book rather than a bias people seem all too quick to ascribe to the article's author (although the author is almost certainly biased too -- we all are). I'm not sure the article has embellished much given the introduction. The article actually points out the book's main bias, "Chang does not consider any alternative theses that might cause gender disparities in occupational sectors." People attempting to analyze an issue with a narrative already firmly in mind is all too common, and the signal to noise ratio on this subject been getting worse. This book appears to be more of the same. I've done a lot of reading on this issue, and the book's intro and this article reflect a common narrative that can explain only some of the data rather than following where the data leads. The article cites a few books by professional psychologists that discuss gender differences at length. That's where you'll find better data and better theories to explain the data. As for other good points in the article: 1. I think the article is correct to point out that tech is getting an unusual amount of attention given the gender disparities in other fields. I think people with a feminist agenda see tech as a big lever for social change because of how pervasive tech is in our lives. Adopting that agenda will have upsides and downsides, but we should always be wary of agendas, because they are by necessity blind to effects outside their narrow scope. This agenda is often couched in phrases like "diverse teams always outperform non-diverse teams". If that were true to any meaningful degree, then there would be no need for any explicit action on our part because compensation for diversity would reflect that. 2. The article is also correct to point out that redistributing work means taking women out of other sectors and displacing men to other sectors (although obviously hyperbolic in suggesting we just swap with nurses), and this change won't necessarily lead to better outcomes overall. Finally, consider the obvious question: why is it necessary to "break up" the boy's club in tech when we clearly didn't need any such call to break up the boy's clubs in medicine or law. Arguably, they were far more insular and sexist, but women broke into them anyway and achieved gender parity. But note that while those fields overall are roughly gender equal, the genders have still segregated themselves into various specializations, eg. surgery is still male dominant, pediatrics is female dominant. The sexism narrative can't explain this, but the works by the psychologists the article cites actually can. This is one among a few data points that tells me who is more closely pursuing the data, and who is pursuing a narrative. Anyway, I could trot out plenty of citations on this, and I have here on HN in the past, but there's little point. It almost always devolves into pointless squabbling.
belorn 8y ago
I would very much like to see some data that explore how much business is conducted outside of offices per industry sector and where. To me it seems about as common as merger deals being done while the people involved are stone drunk, which I assume must happen somewhere but can't possible be the norm.
cultus 8y ago
As the other poster said, this is a standard Quillete article. Incomplete information and faulty reasoning dressed up to discredit progressive causes, and science surrounding these issues. Yes, it should be incredibly obvious that fewer women produces fewer sexual harassment complaints. I bet welding doesn't have too many women complaining abut harassment or discrimination either. Quillete essentially a crypto, "respectable" outlet of the alt-right. I don't know whether this is a good book or not. It probably isn't. But the review is obviously an excuse to take a swipe at gender equality, while still acting smart and scientific.

danharaj 8y ago

Quillette consistently publishes truthy and dishonest articles pushing a counter-progressive narrative; bullshit in its most exquisite, hand crafted, artisanal form: just the right mix of data and distortion to make it a pain in the ass to refute unless you roll up your sleeves and look at the data yourself.

Presquare 8y ago
Sigh. This seems to be a common pattern on HN where users make very strong negative claims about some person/organisation without even attempting to justify it. I wonder if this is a conscious tactic where people who don't like some person/organisation attempt to attach negative emotions to it. Hoping that people unfamiliar with it would feel negatively about it, without really knowing why they feel that way. "I just remember someone saying that it is bad."
- danharaj 8y ago
  Yes I'm obviously engaging in a misinformation campaign on hacker news. Or I'm sipping tea on sunday morning. Definitely the former. Well, why not both actually?
  - Presquare 8y ago
    Don't try to get away with sarcasm. Whether this is part of your secret masterplan, or a casual Sunday morning comment, is irrelevant. You referred to Quillette's articles as, "bullshit in its most exquisite, hand crafted, artisanal form". If you aren't willing to even attempt justifying such defamatory claims, don't make them.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      I am allowed to make comments without justifying them. I wholeheartedly acknowledge that I have done so. I even said why I wouldn't bother. I am not committing defamation. Have a good day :^)
- 8y ago

craig_peacock 8y ago

Text book example of a well researched and qualified article! A much needed breath of fresh air, thank you...

adjkant 8y ago

So this article criticizes a lack of data then only uses a single data source (on complaints) that loops in all housing and employment data into one without separation of type (say, by sexual harassment). That doesn't really show anything beyond the bias of the author. Not to mention the inherent problem with formal complaints vs actual number of incidents that is not discussed at all. As mentioned by others, no accounting for income or any other factors was done either. I wouldn't say any information of value lies in the "analysis" here. Not to say the book is validated, simply that this is clearly hit piece that's trying to disguise itself as a review from any point of neutrality.

romanhn 8y ago
Dust jacket refers to the book cover, not the author.
- adjkant 8y ago
  Whoops, edited accordingly.
bko 8y ago
The author of Brotopia made the claim of a toxic environment without evidence. The burden or proof lies on the person making the claim. The author of the piece questions the claim with a single data source. Attacking his source doesn't somehow validate the author of Brotopia
- adjkant 8y ago
  I said exactly that it doesn't validate the book in my post. But showing a single, very irrelevant stat is not a counterargument either.

malvosenior 8y ago

There are an awful lot of Harvard educated journalists complaining about male privileged nowadays. Chang probably makes more money than most of the techies she attacks in her book. She has her own national television show and now book that's being promoted in the mainstream media. Business Insider called her one of the top 100 influential people in tech. Pretty good for someone who can't code! It doesn't look like this so called discrimination has had any impact on her career.

adjkant 8y ago
What does her career have to do with any of this? Would you like to go the anecdota to data route or are you trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up? Either point doesn't seem very sound, and why be so roundabout with your point? Or are you simply trying to discredit something you disagree with by attacking the author?
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > trying to claim that she's clearly just made all this up? Yes. I'm using her own success as a direct refutation of her argument.
  - chipgap98 8y ago
    Your argument is that because one woman has had this level of success then gender bias doesn't exist?
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      My argument is that someone as privileged as Chang ought not sling mud at an entire industry and mark us a “brotopia”. I’m actually not ok with someone labeling me like that. Extra galling given that she has succeeded wildly in that very industry.
      - danielam 8y ago

arcaster 8y ago

Glad to see more work from Quillette, strongly believe they're one of the only strong less-bias sources of objective journalism in our world today.

aklemm 8y ago
That’s like a liberal saying NPR is objective. There is no objective. They might be serious and mostly honest (just like NPR), but Quillette definitely has a bias.