6 ms·

That doesn't seem like a third possibility — it sounds like the same thing as "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because t

by chc 8y ago

That doesn't seem like a third possibility — it sounds like the same thing as "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because they are innately less capable." It's theoretically possible that women just generally suck at computers, but if that's someone's argument, I'd prefer they come out and actually make the argument instead of throwing around smokescreens about "equality of outcomes vs. equality of opportunity."

leereeves 8y ago
Capable isn't the same thing as interested. I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it). As The Atlantic said: > Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science [or technology].
- chc 8y ago
  It is when we're talking about outcomes within a field. Either you think women deserve to be paid less or not — there isn't really a third possibility there. If they do deserve worse outcomes, then either they suck innately or they suck because they're not interested, but either way you're saying they suck.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy. If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.
    - chc 8y ago
      I'm talking about outcomes for female programmers here. You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less than male programmers, who presumably do program? Or what? Who are these female programmers who don't program that you're apparently so interested in talking about?
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less This is weird. That's not how I read what leereeves wrote at all. Yet you repeatedly insist that's what he's saying. Are you perhaps projecting an opinion onto leereeves? Preferences can very much influence the outcomes of a training pipeline for a field. (I say this as someone who taught a class attended by Chic Tech students.) That's just common sense.
        chc 8y ago
        I'm trying to get leereeves to actually explain what he means. What sort of difference do people think exists between men and women that makes them deserve to, for example, be paid less for the same work (i.e. worse outcome) without being worse at the job?
        leereeves 8y ago
        You're asking me to explain something that may not even be true. According to the article, your scenario is not reality: > When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work. men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
      - haberman 8y ago
        Women who achieve the same things as men deserve the same compensation. I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with that. This article is about a comprehensive review of salaries at Google that concluded that overall, women who achieved the same job levels as men were being paid more. The opportunity vs. outcome question is applied to the question of representation. How many women should we expect to see at Google, across job levels, if the process for selecting and promoting people is fair?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    My room mate works fewer hours than me and doesn't have oncall rotations. He makes less money accordingly. Are you willing to walk up to his face and tell him that he "sucks" because he doesn't work as hard and doesn't have the same TC as I do? To be frank, your posts are pretty denigrating to people who choose to have better work life balance. Not everyone sees their self worth in terms of dollars.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it) I had an ex-girlfriend who could code, but had no interest in doing that for a job. I'm currently married to a woman with 3 degrees, one of which is a PhD, and she also can code, but says she feels sorry for me, because it's my job.
ZeroFries 8y ago
It's interesting that you still don't understand the third possibility. I wonder if it has something to do with why many hard-leaning leftists also only consider the first two as possibilities.
- chc 8y ago
  OK, let me give you an example outcome and maybe you can explain to me how the third possibility applies in a way that is meaningfully distinct from the first two. Outcome: The women working as programmers at FooSoft make on average 10% less than the men working there. Possible reasons: 1. Lack of opportunity (e.g. people in power at FooSoft have bias against them makes it harder for them to have their contributions valued) 2. They just aren't as good as the men 3. They...have different interests in some way that apparently doesn't make them worse but does make them deserve to be paid less?
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Let's be specific and replace FooSoft with Google. A quick search suggests that only 20% of programmers in general are female, but 30% of Google programmers are female. I'm not certain these numbers are accurate, but if they are, female programmers are over represented at Google. That would mean Google hired a greater percentage of female programmers than male programmers. That is, if Google hired the top 0.1% of male programmers, they hired the top 0.15% of female programmers. If we assume two groups have identical distribution of qualifications, the female programmers hired would have lower qualifications, as an obvious consequence of a hiring policy that favors women. That's not saying women are less qualified, it's saying that Google hires women who are less qualified because they want to hire more women than the 20% that sex-blind hiring would result in.
    - chc 8y ago
      Let me get this straight: When women are hired less, it's because they're simply not interested. But when men are hired less, it's because they're being discriminated against? I think my hypothesis is simpler: - Women are discriminated against in the industry as a whole - Google actively discriminates in favor of women It's discrimination both times.

by chc 8y ago

leereeves 8y ago

Capable isn't the same thing as interested. I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it). As The Atlantic said: > Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science [or technology].

chc 8y ago
It is when we're talking about outcomes within a field. Either you think women deserve to be paid less or not — there isn't really a third possibility there. If they do deserve worse outcomes, then either they suck innately or they suck because they're not interested, but either way you're saying they suck.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy. If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.
  - chc 8y ago
    I'm talking about outcomes for female programmers here. You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less than male programmers, who presumably do program? Or what? Who are these female programmers who don't program that you're apparently so interested in talking about?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less This is weird. That's not how I read what leereeves wrote at all. Yet you repeatedly insist that's what he's saying. Are you perhaps projecting an opinion onto leereeves? Preferences can very much influence the outcomes of a training pipeline for a field. (I say this as someone who taught a class attended by Chic Tech students.) That's just common sense.
      - chc 8y ago
        I'm trying to get leereeves to actually explain what he means. What sort of difference do people think exists between men and women that makes them deserve to, for example, be paid less for the same work (i.e. worse outcome) without being worse at the job?
        leereeves 8y ago
        You're asking me to explain something that may not even be true. According to the article, your scenario is not reality: > When Google conducted a study recently to determine whether the company was underpaying women and members of minority groups, it found, to the surprise of just about everyone, that men were paid less money than women for doing similar work. men were paid less money than women for doing similar work.
    - haberman 8y ago
      Women who achieve the same things as men deserve the same compensation. I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with that. This article is about a comprehensive review of salaries at Google that concluded that overall, women who achieved the same job levels as men were being paid more. The opportunity vs. outcome question is applied to the question of representation. How many women should we expect to see at Google, across job levels, if the process for selecting and promoting people is fair?
- manfredo 8y ago
  My room mate works fewer hours than me and doesn't have oncall rotations. He makes less money accordingly. Are you willing to walk up to his face and tell him that he "sucks" because he doesn't work as hard and doesn't have the same TC as I do? To be frank, your posts are pretty denigrating to people who choose to have better work life balance. Not everyone sees their self worth in terms of dollars.
stcredzero 8y ago
I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it) I had an ex-girlfriend who could code, but had no interest in doing that for a job. I'm currently married to a woman with 3 degrees, one of which is a PhD, and she also can code, but says she feels sorry for me, because it's my job.

ZeroFries 8y ago

It's interesting that you still don't understand the third possibility. I wonder if it has something to do with why many hard-leaning leftists also only consider the first two as possibilities.

chc 8y ago
OK, let me give you an example outcome and maybe you can explain to me how the third possibility applies in a way that is meaningfully distinct from the first two. Outcome: The women working as programmers at FooSoft make on average 10% less than the men working there. Possible reasons: 1. Lack of opportunity (e.g. people in power at FooSoft have bias against them makes it harder for them to have their contributions valued) 2. They just aren't as good as the men 3. They...have different interests in some way that apparently doesn't make them worse but does make them deserve to be paid less?
- leereeves 8y ago
  Let's be specific and replace FooSoft with Google. A quick search suggests that only 20% of programmers in general are female, but 30% of Google programmers are female. I'm not certain these numbers are accurate, but if they are, female programmers are over represented at Google. That would mean Google hired a greater percentage of female programmers than male programmers. That is, if Google hired the top 0.1% of male programmers, they hired the top 0.15% of female programmers. If we assume two groups have identical distribution of qualifications, the female programmers hired would have lower qualifications, as an obvious consequence of a hiring policy that favors women. That's not saying women are less qualified, it's saying that Google hires women who are less qualified because they want to hire more women than the 20% that sex-blind hiring would result in.
  - chc 8y ago
    Let me get this straight: When women are hired less, it's because they're simply not interested. But when men are hired less, it's because they're being discriminated against? I think my hypothesis is simpler: - Women are discriminated against in the industry as a whole - Google actively discriminates in favor of women It's discrimination both times.