6 ms·

> In case you wonder, they are not random people put there for reasons, like for example since Madelyn is a woman so there was some pressure to add she Kind of

> In case you wonder, they are not random people put there for reasons, like for example since Madelyn is a woman so there was some pressure to add she Kind of a strange thing to call out.

eropple 6y ago
Tech's got plenty of the pince-nez set who would Just Ask Questions about a core contributor getting their spot for those reasons. Can't blame him for being proactive about nipping them in the bud.
phroobster 6y ago
These are the times we live in. Thanks to widespread racist/sexist hiring practices, every time I see a woman or minority in an upper level position I can’t help but wonder if they are there because someone wanted to fill a diversity quota. The thought never even crossed my mind 10 years ago.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- majormajor 6y ago
  This is a bizarre claim. People getting labeled as "diversity hires" and being assumed to be less competent than their peers is a decades-old thing. It wasn't even a particularly new observation when South Park literally named a character after it almost 25 years ago. (Probably many of the same people getting labeled that way for holding high-level positions today were similarly judged in their entry-level positions back then! But if people are no longer suspicious of women or minorities in "regular" roles and resume their judgement for upper-level roles, I guess that's a change in the right direction, at least. :| )
  - asveikau 6y ago
    25 years ago it was already old news. I remember in my childhood even further back than that, the grownups would make comments about affirmative action hires. If you think about it this is just one more layer of discrimination people face. If you are in one of those categories, no matter how smart, competent, and worthy you are, many people will assume you didn't get there on merit, and that you took the job from someone better. We ought to reject this.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > This is a bizarre claim. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/05/alexis-ohanian-steps-down-reddit-board/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/05/alexis-ohanian-steps-down-... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-gender-quota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-g... This isn't new news. Diversity hiring and promotion is all over, alongside the recent BLM relevance.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      Yes, there's been ongoing activism, hand-wringing, counter-activism, legislation, etc, in this space for several decades. So claiming that it's a phenomenon of just the last decade as a way to justify suspicion of merit is very bizarre. Where have you all been?
      - derptron 6y ago
        If you can't admit that the behavior has increased in recent times then there's no point in discussion
      - iateanapple 6y ago
        > Where have you all been? The pressure on management to hire diverse candidates has increased 100 fold over the past decade.
  - dijit 6y ago
    > This is a bizarre claim. People getting labeled as "diversity hires" and being assumed to be less competent than their peers is a decades-old thing. The truth is that it kind of doesn't matter if it's new or not, it's a very hot subject right now and people are touchy about it. I understand why; Women are facing a lot of abuse on the internet and it feels like many are coming forward with icky things that people have said/done. On the other side it feels like there's been a cataclysmic overreaction- and many people get annoyed when we're asked to "make sure the next one you hire is a $under-represented" or getting overruled by HR when hiring otherwise. (yes, this happened, and it was frustrating because the person we hired was not able to lead the project we needed and was hired anyway- she later left, burned out, nearly wrecked her career and I feel incredibly guilty for not being more vocal about it and keeping it mostly to myself for fear of being called a bigot)
- bzb3 6y ago
  This is very sad but I share your sentiment. Thanks for having the courage to write this comment.
- baddox 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that tech or corporate culture now is more discriminatory in its hiring practices than it was 10 years ago?
- wwright 6y ago
  I think the widespread practices may be calling from inside the house.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Surely the weirder thing is to see, for example, a dozen member board for a global corporation where every single member is a middle aged white guy? Or an outfit where everybody in the C-suite went to the same school. Like, it's not quite as astonishing as a "government committee on women's health" in which every single member is a man, but it's getting up there. Diversity is an attribute you want unless you've got some weird demographic quirk as focus for your organisation. Just as you shouldn't try to solve "Two is one and one is none" by just purchasing duplicate tools, but instead look to duplicate functionality, you want senior management (and hires throughout but this pattern matters most at the top) to each have a different range of skill sets and life experiences not just be carbon copies of each other. If the most notable difference between the senior management team is their golf handicaps then they are going to miss all the same opportunities so why are you duplicating their salary cost? It stands to reason that there are going to be women (in particular) with the innate abilities you want, but with a different set of life experiences that are valuable. If your rivals won't hire them then it's even more likely you can find them available than their male counterparts. Now, like a "Rust programmers, must have at least 20 years Rust experience" bogus requirement, if you hire based on what people already did, not what you assess they can do in the future then sure, you're going to conclude that there aren't many women, or black people, or whatever in a role that has not historically hired women or black people or whatever. But that means now you're bad at hiring people too.
  - basilgohar 6y ago
    This might be unpleasant to say, but I don't think it's _weird_ that a C-suite is all middle-aged, white men. As in, it's pretty common and unsurprising. That is very different than saying that is what is _best_, which I would disagree with. There's a lot of inertia and it would be no doubt obvious that these middle-aged, white men have had more opportunities than women and have had greater chances to progress professionally. Again, I don't mean that's better or right, it just is what is for historical reasons. The social and cultural shifts that would change this need years or even decades to play out before it stops becoming weird. And, again, this doesn't mean middle-aged white men are just better or more suited for these kinds of positions – it's just that they've been in the best position, generally speaking, from an education, networking, and cultural position to get access to such positions in contrast to folks from a different background, race, or sex.
- sitkack 6y ago
  You know what, when I see a woman in a male dominated field like infantile fcking tech, I have found they are literally 2x-10x better than their peers. That they can cut through bullshit, navigate metric tons of stupidity and still get their jobs done. They are in the position in spite of their sex, not because of it. If you can't help think it, it is probably because you believe it. If you look for excuse you will find one. Maybe you could illuminate another forum with your wisdom.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > I have found they are literally 2x-10x better than their peers. So either your organisation is horribly sexist by not promoting these women or you are horribly sexist and think they are better because they are women.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      Those are the only two options?
      - iateanapple 6y ago
        > Those are the only two options? Do you have another reason a developer 10x better than her peers isn’t promoted to senior, to principal, etc?
        agustif 6y ago
        That 10x developer. or ninja, or unicorn, are just bullshit titles/prepositions by itself?
- Jestar342 6y ago
  Jesus this is the kind of handwringing excuse Trump could only dream of coming up with on his own. So your own sexism is the fault of women or non-white men getting promoted on merit. That is weapons grade bullshit.
nojvek 6y ago
Until you called out Madelyn as a she. I had no idea. Fundamentally men and women have similar brain physiology, so an equal amount of compute and memory. Which would imply there are no differences when it comes to programming ability. It's just a matter of experience. I'm glad HN doesn't have profile pictures and things.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- antirez 6y ago
  > I'm glad HN doesn't have profile pictures and things. THIS
dupjor 6y ago
I'm pretty sure Antirez doesn't mean it the way you're interpreting it. Just like me, he's not a native English speaker. I believe what he means is that she has NOT been chosen simply because she's a woman, but because of her skills.
- antirez 6y ago
  Exactly, I wanted to make sure people realize she was picked as a human being that is suited to the role. Without consideration for any other metric.

> In case you wonder, they are not random people put there for reasons, like for example since Madelyn is a woman so there was some pressure to add she Kind of a strange thing to call out.

eropple 6y ago

Tech's got plenty of the pince-nez set who would Just Ask Questions about a core contributor getting their spot for those reasons. Can't blame him for being proactive about nipping them in the bud.

phroobster 6y ago

These are the times we live in. Thanks to widespread racist/sexist hiring practices, every time I see a woman or minority in an upper level position I can’t help but wonder if they are there because someone wanted to fill a diversity quota. The thought never even crossed my mind 10 years ago.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
majormajor 6y ago
This is a bizarre claim. People getting labeled as "diversity hires" and being assumed to be less competent than their peers is a decades-old thing. It wasn't even a particularly new observation when South Park literally named a character after it almost 25 years ago. (Probably many of the same people getting labeled that way for holding high-level positions today were similarly judged in their entry-level positions back then! But if people are no longer suspicious of women or minorities in "regular" roles and resume their judgement for upper-level roles, I guess that's a change in the right direction, at least. :| )
- asveikau 6y ago
  25 years ago it was already old news. I remember in my childhood even further back than that, the grownups would make comments about affirmative action hires. If you think about it this is just one more layer of discrimination people face. If you are in one of those categories, no matter how smart, competent, and worthy you are, many people will assume you didn't get there on merit, and that you took the job from someone better. We ought to reject this.
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > This is a bizarre claim. https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/05/alexis-ohanian-steps-down-reddit-board/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/05/alexis-ohanian-steps-down-... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-gender-quota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-g... This isn't new news. Diversity hiring and promotion is all over, alongside the recent BLM relevance.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Yes, there's been ongoing activism, hand-wringing, counter-activism, legislation, etc, in this space for several decades. So claiming that it's a phenomenon of just the last decade as a way to justify suspicion of merit is very bizarre. Where have you all been?
    - derptron 6y ago
      If you can't admit that the behavior has increased in recent times then there's no point in discussion
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > Where have you all been? The pressure on management to hire diverse candidates has increased 100 fold over the past decade.
- dijit 6y ago
  > This is a bizarre claim. People getting labeled as "diversity hires" and being assumed to be less competent than their peers is a decades-old thing. The truth is that it kind of doesn't matter if it's new or not, it's a very hot subject right now and people are touchy about it. I understand why; Women are facing a lot of abuse on the internet and it feels like many are coming forward with icky things that people have said/done. On the other side it feels like there's been a cataclysmic overreaction- and many people get annoyed when we're asked to "make sure the next one you hire is a $under-represented" or getting overruled by HR when hiring otherwise. (yes, this happened, and it was frustrating because the person we hired was not able to lead the project we needed and was hired anyway- she later left, burned out, nearly wrecked her career and I feel incredibly guilty for not being more vocal about it and keeping it mostly to myself for fear of being called a bigot)
bzb3 6y ago
This is very sad but I share your sentiment. Thanks for having the courage to write this comment.
baddox 6y ago
Are you suggesting that tech or corporate culture now is more discriminatory in its hiring practices than it was 10 years ago?
wwright 6y ago
I think the widespread practices may be calling from inside the house.
tialaramex 6y ago
Surely the weirder thing is to see, for example, a dozen member board for a global corporation where every single member is a middle aged white guy? Or an outfit where everybody in the C-suite went to the same school. Like, it's not quite as astonishing as a "government committee on women's health" in which every single member is a man, but it's getting up there. Diversity is an attribute you want unless you've got some weird demographic quirk as focus for your organisation. Just as you shouldn't try to solve "Two is one and one is none" by just purchasing duplicate tools, but instead look to duplicate functionality, you want senior management (and hires throughout but this pattern matters most at the top) to each have a different range of skill sets and life experiences not just be carbon copies of each other. If the most notable difference between the senior management team is their golf handicaps then they are going to miss all the same opportunities so why are you duplicating their salary cost? It stands to reason that there are going to be women (in particular) with the innate abilities you want, but with a different set of life experiences that are valuable. If your rivals won't hire them then it's even more likely you can find them available than their male counterparts. Now, like a "Rust programmers, must have at least 20 years Rust experience" bogus requirement, if you hire based on what people already did, not what you assess they can do in the future then sure, you're going to conclude that there aren't many women, or black people, or whatever in a role that has not historically hired women or black people or whatever. But that means now you're bad at hiring people too.
- basilgohar 6y ago
  This might be unpleasant to say, but I don't think it's _weird_ that a C-suite is all middle-aged, white men. As in, it's pretty common and unsurprising. That is very different than saying that is what is _best_, which I would disagree with. There's a lot of inertia and it would be no doubt obvious that these middle-aged, white men have had more opportunities than women and have had greater chances to progress professionally. Again, I don't mean that's better or right, it just is what is for historical reasons. The social and cultural shifts that would change this need years or even decades to play out before it stops becoming weird. And, again, this doesn't mean middle-aged white men are just better or more suited for these kinds of positions – it's just that they've been in the best position, generally speaking, from an education, networking, and cultural position to get access to such positions in contrast to folks from a different background, race, or sex.
sitkack 6y ago
You know what, when I see a woman in a male dominated field like infantile fcking tech, I have found they are literally 2x-10x better than their peers. That they can cut through bullshit, navigate metric tons of stupidity and still get their jobs done. They are in the position in spite of their sex, not because of it. If you can't help think it, it is probably because you believe it. If you look for excuse you will find one. Maybe you could illuminate another forum with your wisdom.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > I have found they are literally 2x-10x better than their peers. So either your organisation is horribly sexist by not promoting these women or you are horribly sexist and think they are better because they are women.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    Those are the only two options?
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      > Those are the only two options? Do you have another reason a developer 10x better than her peers isn’t promoted to senior, to principal, etc?
      - agustif 6y ago
        That 10x developer. or ninja, or unicorn, are just bullshit titles/prepositions by itself?
Jestar342 6y ago
Jesus this is the kind of handwringing excuse Trump could only dream of coming up with on his own. So your own sexism is the fault of women or non-white men getting promoted on merit. That is weapons grade bullshit.

nojvek 6y ago

Until you called out Madelyn as a she. I had no idea. Fundamentally men and women have similar brain physiology, so an equal amount of compute and memory. Which would imply there are no differences when it comes to programming ability. It's just a matter of experience. I'm glad HN doesn't have profile pictures and things.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
antirez 6y ago
> I'm glad HN doesn't have profile pictures and things. THIS

dupjor 6y ago

I'm pretty sure Antirez doesn't mean it the way you're interpreting it. Just like me, he's not a native English speaker. I believe what he means is that she has NOT been chosen simply because she's a woman, but because of her skills.

antirez 6y ago
Exactly, I wanted to make sure people realize she was picked as a human being that is suited to the role. Without consideration for any other metric.