10 ms·

> At our CS faculty, only 30% of undergrads and 15% of the professors are women. Going on parental leave during a PhD or post-doc usually means the end of an ac

by tomp 6y ago

> At our CS faculty, only 30% of undergrads and 15% of the professors are women. Going on parental leave during a PhD or post-doc usually means the end of an academic career. However, this lack of diversity is often abused as an excuse to shield certain people from any form of criticism. Reducing every negative comment in a scientific discussion to race and gender creates a toxic environment. People are becoming afraid to engage in fear of being called a racist or sexist, which in turn reinforces the diversity problem. This was an unexpected twist! It's rare to read such an honest, unbiased opinion on this issue.

deleuze 6y ago
I'm glad you've honed in to identify that the 15-30% of women in machine learning are actually the real problem. Which seems consistent with your previous claim that: > I'm a man, but I've never received any benefit just because (most of) our presidents / businessmen are men (in fact, arguably (individual) women receive more benefits, because most of those men are heterosexuals). A small minority of women are actually the real privileged ones, huh?
- new2628 6y ago
  They are not the real problem. The all-or-nothing exaggerations that remove all nuance are (a major part of) the real problem.
  - deleuze 6y ago
    I think the person saying that "akshually, women are more privileged because I'm a heterosexual" is the one lacking nuance.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Nobody said this; you're inventing strawmen. e: Apparently someone did say this. Apologies.
      - deleuze 6y ago
        The quote literally says that... how is that a strawman?
        vonmoltke 6y ago
        You pulled a quote from tomp's post history, in a post made 8 days ago in a discussion on an unrelated story, and gave no indication of where it came from. You should have posted the source link as an attribution, because I was really confused about where you were getting that from until BerislavLopac found it and posted the link.
      - BerislavLopac 6y ago
        I'm not defending either of them, but that quote is apparently from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662706
    - luckylion 6y ago
      That's a misrepresentation of the content and you're pretending he wrote that. It didn't say "women are more privileged", it said "I'm a man, but I've never received any benefit just because (most of) our presidents / businessmen are men". Please leave that kind of behavior on reddit and Twitter.
  - Topolomancer 6y ago
    Moreover, not everyone who receives benefits is aware of them in the first place. For example, I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me, whereas my female Ph.D. students have to endure all kinds of sleazy invitations over the course of one week. (low sample size, admittedly, but it was eye-opening)
    - mtgp1000 6y ago
      >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would be ecstatic to be hit on by a woman or two at a conference? Can we acknowledge that men and women are innately different? That forcing men to change their behavior significantly to accommodate for women in male spaces may in fact place unequal strain on men? Edit: are we just going to deny the fact that men are biologically driven to reproduce and compete for women? That this is an instinctual urge that we are required to suppress? You don't solve problems by ignoring their sources.
      - blaser-waffle 6y ago
        As a fat, hairy IT guy who goes to a lot of conferences, I'd be super unnerved by multiple women hitting on me. That's the kind of thing that ends up with me getting hoodwinked out of a bunch of cash or waking up without a kidney in a bath tub full of ice.
      - cycomanic 6y ago
        > >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me > Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would be ecstatic to be hit on by a woman or two at a conference? Can we acknowledge that men and women are innately different? That forcing men to change their behavior significantly to accommodate for women in male spaces may in fact place unequal strain on men? "Male spaces"?! Since when are conferences male spaces, they are a freaking professional space and yes expecting men (and women) to act professionally is exactly what we should do. > Edit: are we just going to deny the fact that men are biologically driven to reproduce and compete for women? That this is an instinctual urge that we are required to suppress? You don't solve problems by ignoring their sources. B*ll, to imply that men can't control themselves is just offensive to men. But I guess you're also a proponent that women should wear burkas to protect them from those men that can't control themselves. Funny how those "policies" are always to the detriment of the women, not the men who can't control themselves. So much for unequal strain.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  Ironically, this comment perfectly exemplifies the toxicity.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
Similar has been replicated in removing asking about criminal records to be discriminatory against black people. It really shows just how systemic bias can be. Admittedly this makes me uncertain what studies have been done to prove or at least anyhropologically report on effective movements at increasing diversity. We already know (or have evidence that) more diverse teams are more effective teams.
- twsttest 6y ago
  So because black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime it's somehow discriminatory to ask for criminal records? The answer here is for individuals to stop committing crime, regardless of race. Personal responsibility matters, but people who are obsessed with racialized thinking don't see people as individuals and that in itself is problematic and racist.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    When it comes to policing this is actually a real problem and a violent one. Watch this vicious attack that police pretend a dog did it while not doing anything but provoke more pain. Imagine for a second you were black when you saw this. Getting arrested, not resisting and being mauled by a police dog, this leaves me speechless... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbZWt7kWCCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbZWt7kWCCY
    - tartoran 6y ago
      How about this [1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HI2DY4Xk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HI2DY4Xk
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Black people are convicted of disproportionate amounts of crimes which is different than committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. Or at least as disproportionate an amount. The police, prosecutors and juries will go after black people more harshly and more often. Blacks are also more likely to be poor which means they cannot afford good legal defense.
neutronicus 6y ago
In my opinion the dominant discriminatory mechanism is: 1. The expected working hours and travel schedule 2. Poorly-compensated, unstable unemployment through the mid-thirties as de riguer I'm a man, but my experience is relevant in that I left early for industry from a Physics PhD that was dragging on, in large part because I wanted to start a family. I'm now, according to the feedback I receive, a high-performing C++ developer in the CAD / CAM space, and I didn't have to move around the country doing temp work for below-market compensation, work crazy hours, or suffer through the degrading administrative bullshit one must endure to convince a committee. And I have a seven-month-old and a partner getting a master's on my salary, and we get to live near my parents. It was unpleasant to nod along when "enduring the company of gross assholes like you" was presented (rather than the above) as the dominant discriminatory mechanism, but, you know. There were plenty of gross assholes and it was a learning experience and I guess I'm now probably better for it.
- kspacewalk2 6y ago
  The divide you're describing between careers C++ development and physics can be explained by simple supply and demand. You've responded to the market and are better off for it. Also, when you have a bunch of very intelligent and hard-working physics grad students, how on earth can "working hours" not be a discriminatory mechanism between them, when the coveted faculty positions are so few and far between? Does it not stand to reason that a person who devotes more of his day to the work will come out ahead, on average? It isn't good or bad, it simply is.
  - bumby 6y ago
    “It isn’t good or bad, it simply is” implies it followed some amoral natural law. These are human-created systems, though, and would be built upon human ethics and morals. Stating academia as an institution just “is” isn’t much different than asserting the military-industrial-congressional complex just “is”
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > implies it followed some amoral natural law Doesn't it? If you have two lions of the same physical ability and one of them hunts for six hours a day and the other one hunts for 12 hours a day, which one would you expect to be more successful? > Stating academia as an institution just “is” isn’t much different than asserting the military-industrial-congressional complex just “is” It's not about academia specifically though, it's about any and all systems where individuals compete. Given similar talent, the one who puts in more time/effort will likely win.
raxxorrax 6y ago
I would go further and state that there is no "diversity" problem, whatever that should mean. There is an a priori assumption that it should be 50/50 and only then a field is just. Why CS though? There are countless other occupations where that is not given. The problems with PhD and pregnancy is a university problem. So I still think it is heavily biased.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  "Why CS though?" is a weird statement here. Why should the vast majority, or even a sizable fraction, of fields not have a gender or race balance even remotely approximating the balance of the general population? Is it not a 'should' but merely 'it's okay if they do'? If the balance was in the other direction and men or white people were being intentionally denied jobs, would that be okay? Should it be OK for other things to be unbalanced? Should it be OK if 60% of black people can't get houses but only 10% of white people have trouble getting homes? Should it be OK if 90% of asians are turned away from emergency rooms but only 20% of mexicans are? You can argue that race/gender genetic differences play a role but it's kind of hard to explain away the widespread imbalances here just based off DNA.
  - cheesecracker 6y ago
    There is no indication that people are being denied entry to certain fields.
    - commandlinefan 6y ago
      None that I'm aware of. I've never even seen somebody claim to be an otherwise qualified candidate who is unable to enter a field due to demographics.
      - kevingadd 6y ago
        Other than high-profile lawsuits against tech companies accusing them of discrimination against demographic groups? https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination-case-first-brought-by-james-damore-can-proceed/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination... "Now the plaintiffs can request access to internal Google documents to try to support their allegations, which also include some people being “denied employment because of their actual and perceived conservative political activities and affiliations, and their status as actual or perceived Asian or Caucasian male job applicants,”" There are myriad examples of this sort of allegation from the last decade, it's not hard to find them. They've been discussed here on HN.
asdfman123 6y ago
Good article on that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberal...
hintymad 6y ago
The US is a funny country. Parents mock geeks. Towns are crazy over only sports, and cheer leaders are the most popular figures in schools. Schools tell kids that they need to be unique and they don't have to study hard, and the term "queen bee" is apparently a US thing, and it is definitely not popular, if non-existent, in India. The states dumb down their curriculum. The testing organizations use only standard tests. The whole country sells more barbies than any action figures of female scientists, biographies of female scientists, and experiment kits for kids, combined. Did your teacher tell you stories of Marie Curie passionately? Did your teacher tell you stories of Noether and her amazing theorems with great admiration? Did your teacher tell you the inspirational stories of Ada Lovelace? Did your teacher and parents tell students that everyone can achieve the same level of mastery on STEM? Did your country treat engineers and scientists as heroes? I guess not. And now a bunch of lefties are complaining there are fewer women scientists and engineers in the pipeline and attribute it solely on discrimination or bigotry? Get your priority straight.
- tomp 6y ago
  The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. > Parents mock geeks. I was a kid nerd. I was mocked. (And bullied too, but I’ll take that one for the team.) Trust me, there was absolutely no encouragement provided for me, except by a few geeky teachers. If girls receive(d) approximately zero encouragement, that sounds like equality to me (though not how things should be!). The idea of geeks being cool, rich and popular is very recent, brought to you by the likes of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Big Bang Theory.
  - hintymad 6y ago
    > The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. You're right. I somehow fell into the framework set by the progressives. Any gender can do STEM, and the country I came from ensures that such message is loud and clear. Having female role models helps, but that's beside the point.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    > The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. Nobody said that they can't be, that's a straw man. But there is a difference between not being inspired by male scientists and never having a female scientist mentioned to you. > > Parents mock geeks. > I was a kid nerd. I was mocked. (And bullied too, but I’ll take that one for the team.) Trust me, there was absolutely no encouragement provided for me, except by a few geeky teachers. If girls receive(d) approximately zero encouragement, that sounds like equality to me (though not how things should be!). The idea of geeks being cool, rich and popular is very recent, brought to you by the likes of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Big Bang Theory. I don't think the OP was only talking about female geeks but in general. Regarding bullying, I agree it's a big problem, however girls tend to have another issue to fight with, which is being told (by teachers, parents, and other geeks...) from very early on that they are not good at science/math. So imagine being bullied for geekiness and at the same time being told that you can't really do that think you like.
bassman9000 6y ago
Indeed, with a correction _People are becoming afraid_ People are already afraid. Every other discipline outside STEM is completely rotten, it's clear STEM is next.

by tomp 6y ago

deleuze 6y ago

I'm glad you've honed in to identify that the 15-30% of women in machine learning are actually the real problem. Which seems consistent with your previous claim that: > I'm a man, but I've never received any benefit just because (most of) our presidents / businessmen are men (in fact, arguably (individual) women receive more benefits, because most of those men are heterosexuals). A small minority of women are actually the real privileged ones, huh?

new2628 6y ago
They are not the real problem. The all-or-nothing exaggerations that remove all nuance are (a major part of) the real problem.
- deleuze 6y ago
  I think the person saying that "akshually, women are more privileged because I'm a heterosexual" is the one lacking nuance.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Nobody said this; you're inventing strawmen. e: Apparently someone did say this. Apologies.
    - deleuze 6y ago
      The quote literally says that... how is that a strawman?
      - vonmoltke 6y ago
        You pulled a quote from tomp's post history, in a post made 8 days ago in a discussion on an unrelated story, and gave no indication of where it came from. You should have posted the source link as an attribution, because I was really confused about where you were getting that from until BerislavLopac found it and posted the link.
    - BerislavLopac 6y ago
      I'm not defending either of them, but that quote is apparently from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662706 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23662706
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's a misrepresentation of the content and you're pretending he wrote that. It didn't say "women are more privileged", it said "I'm a man, but I've never received any benefit just because (most of) our presidents / businessmen are men". Please leave that kind of behavior on reddit and Twitter.
- Topolomancer 6y ago
  Moreover, not everyone who receives benefits is aware of them in the first place. For example, I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me, whereas my female Ph.D. students have to endure all kinds of sleazy invitations over the course of one week. (low sample size, admittedly, but it was eye-opening)
  - mtgp1000 6y ago
    >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would be ecstatic to be hit on by a woman or two at a conference? Can we acknowledge that men and women are innately different? That forcing men to change their behavior significantly to accommodate for women in male spaces may in fact place unequal strain on men? Edit: are we just going to deny the fact that men are biologically driven to reproduce and compete for women? That this is an instinctual urge that we are required to suppress? You don't solve problems by ignoring their sources.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      As a fat, hairy IT guy who goes to a lot of conferences, I'd be super unnerved by multiple women hitting on me. That's the kind of thing that ends up with me getting hoodwinked out of a bunch of cash or waking up without a kidney in a bath tub full of ice.
    - cycomanic 6y ago
      > >I am reasonably sure that I have it slightly easier at conferences as a man because women do not hit on me > Can we acknowledge the fact that most men would be ecstatic to be hit on by a woman or two at a conference? Can we acknowledge that men and women are innately different? That forcing men to change their behavior significantly to accommodate for women in male spaces may in fact place unequal strain on men? "Male spaces"?! Since when are conferences male spaces, they are a freaking professional space and yes expecting men (and women) to act professionally is exactly what we should do. > Edit: are we just going to deny the fact that men are biologically driven to reproduce and compete for women? That this is an instinctual urge that we are required to suppress? You don't solve problems by ignoring their sources. B*ll, to imply that men can't control themselves is just offensive to men. But I guess you're also a proponent that women should wear burkas to protect them from those men that can't control themselves. Funny how those "policies" are always to the detriment of the women, not the men who can't control themselves. So much for unequal strain.
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Ironically, this comment perfectly exemplifies the toxicity.

TeaDrunk 6y ago

Similar has been replicated in removing asking about criminal records to be discriminatory against black people. It really shows just how systemic bias can be. Admittedly this makes me uncertain what studies have been done to prove or at least anyhropologically report on effective movements at increasing diversity. We already know (or have evidence that) more diverse teams are more effective teams.

twsttest 6y ago
So because black people commit disproportionate amounts of crime it's somehow discriminatory to ask for criminal records? The answer here is for individuals to stop committing crime, regardless of race. Personal responsibility matters, but people who are obsessed with racialized thinking don't see people as individuals and that in itself is problematic and racist.
- tartoran 6y ago
  When it comes to policing this is actually a real problem and a violent one. Watch this vicious attack that police pretend a dog did it while not doing anything but provoke more pain. Imagine for a second you were black when you saw this. Getting arrested, not resisting and being mauled by a police dog, this leaves me speechless... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbZWt7kWCCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbZWt7kWCCY
  - tartoran 6y ago
    How about this [1]? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HI2DY4Xk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0HI2DY4Xk
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Black people are convicted of disproportionate amounts of crimes which is different than committing a disproportionate amount of crimes. Or at least as disproportionate an amount. The police, prosecutors and juries will go after black people more harshly and more often. Blacks are also more likely to be poor which means they cannot afford good legal defense.

neutronicus 6y ago

In my opinion the dominant discriminatory mechanism is: 1. The expected working hours and travel schedule 2. Poorly-compensated, unstable unemployment through the mid-thirties as de riguer I'm a man, but my experience is relevant in that I left early for industry from a Physics PhD that was dragging on, in large part because I wanted to start a family. I'm now, according to the feedback I receive, a high-performing C++ developer in the CAD / CAM space, and I didn't have to move around the country doing temp work for below-market compensation, work crazy hours, or suffer through the degrading administrative bullshit one must endure to convince a committee. And I have a seven-month-old and a partner getting a master's on my salary, and we get to live near my parents. It was unpleasant to nod along when "enduring the company of gross assholes like you" was presented (rather than the above) as the dominant discriminatory mechanism, but, you know. There were plenty of gross assholes and it was a learning experience and I guess I'm now probably better for it.

kspacewalk2 6y ago
The divide you're describing between careers C++ development and physics can be explained by simple supply and demand. You've responded to the market and are better off for it. Also, when you have a bunch of very intelligent and hard-working physics grad students, how on earth can "working hours" not be a discriminatory mechanism between them, when the coveted faculty positions are so few and far between? Does it not stand to reason that a person who devotes more of his day to the work will come out ahead, on average? It isn't good or bad, it simply is.
- bumby 6y ago
  “It isn’t good or bad, it simply is” implies it followed some amoral natural law. These are human-created systems, though, and would be built upon human ethics and morals. Stating academia as an institution just “is” isn’t much different than asserting the military-industrial-congressional complex just “is”
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > implies it followed some amoral natural law Doesn't it? If you have two lions of the same physical ability and one of them hunts for six hours a day and the other one hunts for 12 hours a day, which one would you expect to be more successful? > Stating academia as an institution just “is” isn’t much different than asserting the military-industrial-congressional complex just “is” It's not about academia specifically though, it's about any and all systems where individuals compete. Given similar talent, the one who puts in more time/effort will likely win.

raxxorrax 6y ago

I would go further and state that there is no "diversity" problem, whatever that should mean. There is an a priori assumption that it should be 50/50 and only then a field is just. Why CS though? There are countless other occupations where that is not given. The problems with PhD and pregnancy is a university problem. So I still think it is heavily biased.

kevingadd 6y ago
"Why CS though?" is a weird statement here. Why should the vast majority, or even a sizable fraction, of fields not have a gender or race balance even remotely approximating the balance of the general population? Is it not a 'should' but merely 'it's okay if they do'? If the balance was in the other direction and men or white people were being intentionally denied jobs, would that be okay? Should it be OK for other things to be unbalanced? Should it be OK if 60% of black people can't get houses but only 10% of white people have trouble getting homes? Should it be OK if 90% of asians are turned away from emergency rooms but only 20% of mexicans are? You can argue that race/gender genetic differences play a role but it's kind of hard to explain away the widespread imbalances here just based off DNA.
- cheesecracker 6y ago
  There is no indication that people are being denied entry to certain fields.
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    None that I'm aware of. I've never even seen somebody claim to be an otherwise qualified candidate who is unable to enter a field due to demographics.
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      Other than high-profile lawsuits against tech companies accusing them of discrimination against demographic groups? https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination-case-first-brought-by-james-damore-can-proceed/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/07/google-discrimination... "Now the plaintiffs can request access to internal Google documents to try to support their allegations, which also include some people being “denied employment because of their actual and perceived conservative political activities and affiliations, and their status as actual or perceived Asian or Caucasian male job applicants,”" There are myriad examples of this sort of allegation from the last decade, it's not hard to find them. They've been discussed here on HN.

asdfman123 6y ago

Good article on that: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberal...

hintymad 6y ago

The US is a funny country. Parents mock geeks. Towns are crazy over only sports, and cheer leaders are the most popular figures in schools. Schools tell kids that they need to be unique and they don't have to study hard, and the term "queen bee" is apparently a US thing, and it is definitely not popular, if non-existent, in India. The states dumb down their curriculum. The testing organizations use only standard tests. The whole country sells more barbies than any action figures of female scientists, biographies of female scientists, and experiment kits for kids, combined. Did your teacher tell you stories of Marie Curie passionately? Did your teacher tell you stories of Noether and her amazing theorems with great admiration? Did your teacher tell you the inspirational stories of Ada Lovelace? Did your teacher and parents tell students that everyone can achieve the same level of mastery on STEM? Did your country treat engineers and scientists as heroes? I guess not. And now a bunch of lefties are complaining there are fewer women scientists and engineers in the pipeline and attribute it solely on discrimination or bigotry? Get your priority straight.

tomp 6y ago
The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. > Parents mock geeks. I was a kid nerd. I was mocked. (And bullied too, but I’ll take that one for the team.) Trust me, there was absolutely no encouragement provided for me, except by a few geeky teachers. If girls receive(d) approximately zero encouragement, that sounds like equality to me (though not how things should be!). The idea of geeks being cool, rich and popular is very recent, brought to you by the likes of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Big Bang Theory.
- hintymad 6y ago
  > The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. You're right. I somehow fell into the framework set by the progressives. Any gender can do STEM, and the country I came from ensures that such message is loud and clear. Having female role models helps, but that's beside the point.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  > The idea that girls can’t be inspired by male scientists is extremely sexist. Nobody said that they can't be, that's a straw man. But there is a difference between not being inspired by male scientists and never having a female scientist mentioned to you. > > Parents mock geeks. > I was a kid nerd. I was mocked. (And bullied too, but I’ll take that one for the team.) Trust me, there was absolutely no encouragement provided for me, except by a few geeky teachers. If girls receive(d) approximately zero encouragement, that sounds like equality to me (though not how things should be!). The idea of geeks being cool, rich and popular is very recent, brought to you by the likes of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Big Bang Theory. I don't think the OP was only talking about female geeks but in general. Regarding bullying, I agree it's a big problem, however girls tend to have another issue to fight with, which is being told (by teachers, parents, and other geeks...) from very early on that they are not good at science/math. So imagine being bullied for geekiness and at the same time being told that you can't really do that think you like.

bassman9000 6y ago

Indeed, with a correction _People are becoming afraid_ People are already afraid. Every other discipline outside STEM is completely rotten, it's clear STEM is next.