4 ms·

Of course. Women are not physiologically better at QA than other roles in tech companies. That's it. That's 100% of the information required to determine that t

Of course. Women are not physiologically better at QA than other roles in tech companies. That's it. That's 100% of the information required to determine that this is the result of sexism. However, a lot of people seem to think that describing reality is an insult to them, so I have to explain further - this is a result of systemic sexism starting at early childhood. It starts with what toys children are given to play with. It continues via socialization in schools. It's propagated via every surprised face when a woman shows up to learn about technology. No individual person involved in the process might have any malice at all. It's the result of entire systems of behavior, no individual part of which can be described as "the problem". You might call it systemic sexism. You don't have to be able to explain the entire method of operation to see the result. Is there a statistical difference in outcomes between groups that isn't explained by a difference between the groups? Then there's a systemic bias at work.

QuarterReptile 4y ago
>Of course. Women are not physiologically better at QA than other roles in tech companies. That's it. That's 100% of the information required to determine that this is the result of sexism. Car mechanics aren't all women, even though women's hands fit much better into all those tiny spaces in the dashboard and engine bay? Sexism Nurses aren't overwhelmingly male, despite the fact that a significant part of the job is wrangling patients, who overwhelmingly skew obese? Sexism
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Your point here is unintelligible for me.
  - QuarterReptile 4y ago
    I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. I chose them as two things that don't often get cited as evidence of sexism (though mechanic isn't so dirty a job, and isn't dangerous at all. I have more personal awareness if mechanics, so that's what I chose.)
    - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
      Male nurses not being as prevalent is definitely cited often as an example of sexism in my circles.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Unless they can back up those claims with evidence, like male nurse resumes receiving fewer callbacks than identical women's resumes, then there's no basis to their claims.
        chowells 4y ago
        Nope. That's exactly my point. The fact that they aren't somewhere around 50% is sufficient to show it. Filtering does not happen solely at the interview. It happens at hundreds or thousands of steps along the way. It's a systemic problem. Go ahead, do your study. You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) So if hospitals, theoretically, have a slight preference for male nurses in hiring right now... Why are they so uncommon? Because there are fewer candidates. Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        > You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) This is illegal hiring bias. It doesn't matter if a company thinks it'll perform better, it's against the law. If a company finds that male salespeople make more sales, are they justified in turning away women?
barrysteve 4y ago
People don't fit into the workplace based upon their physiological capability to grasp the highest role. You need more information than that to determine systemic sexism. People have free will, life circumnstances seperate to corporate goals and a nature. You can track a bias towards food and water that starts from birth and runs through all of society. We don't explain the lack of people in deserts as systemic waterism. Why do we see women working voluntarily with women in some roles as sexism when it has happened since the beginning of time? The systematic worldview breaks down when it hits the nature of people. We aren't all pawns in a corporate game 24:7, so there are many reasons for people to work they way they do. One would hope they are freely choosing their work roles and not living their lives according to the dictats of gender equality statistics.
- chowells 4y ago
  What is this mysterious "nature of people" that is neither physiological nor the result of learned behavior?

QuarterReptile 4y ago

>Of course. Women are not physiologically better at QA than other roles in tech companies. That's it. That's 100% of the information required to determine that this is the result of sexism. Car mechanics aren't all women, even though women's hands fit much better into all those tiny spaces in the dashboard and engine bay? Sexism Nurses aren't overwhelmingly male, despite the fact that a significant part of the job is wrangling patients, who overwhelmingly skew obese? Sexism

pessimizer 4y ago
Your point here is unintelligible for me.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  I was trying to show by example that grandparent's definition of sexism is ridiculously expansive to the point of choking out all other dimensions of life. I chose them as two things that don't often get cited as evidence of sexism (though mechanic isn't so dirty a job, and isn't dangerous at all. I have more personal awareness if mechanics, so that's what I chose.)
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Male nurses not being as prevalent is definitely cited often as an example of sexism in my circles.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Unless they can back up those claims with evidence, like male nurse resumes receiving fewer callbacks than identical women's resumes, then there's no basis to their claims.
      - chowells 4y ago
        Nope. That's exactly my point. The fact that they aren't somewhere around 50% is sufficient to show it. Filtering does not happen solely at the interview. It happens at hundreds or thousands of steps along the way. It's a systemic problem. Go ahead, do your study. You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) So if hospitals, theoretically, have a slight preference for male nurses in hiring right now... Why are they so uncommon? Because there are fewer candidates. Hiring isn't "the problem". No one thing is "the problem". There's no bad guy to blame. No evil cabal. You don't need to get upset every time someone points out a systemic bias. You aren't being accused of anything. You aren't the bad guy. But it would be nice if you acknowledged things are a bit out of whack, and helped to reduce the skew in the next generation. You don't need to fix it. It's enough to occasionally point out things could be better.
        Manuel_D 4y ago
        > You'd probably find that most hospitals have a slight preference for male nurses as they're trying to increase their diversity for all the practical benefits it brings. (Yes, diversity has a lot of practical benefits. Having people with a lot of different backgrounds around significantly improves the odds of having someone around who can successfully interact with a person no one else can.) This is illegal hiring bias. It doesn't matter if a company thinks it'll perform better, it's against the law. If a company finds that male salespeople make more sales, are they justified in turning away women?

barrysteve 4y ago

People don't fit into the workplace based upon their physiological capability to grasp the highest role. You need more information than that to determine systemic sexism. People have free will, life circumnstances seperate to corporate goals and a nature. You can track a bias towards food and water that starts from birth and runs through all of society. We don't explain the lack of people in deserts as systemic waterism. Why do we see women working voluntarily with women in some roles as sexism when it has happened since the beginning of time? The systematic worldview breaks down when it hits the nature of people. We aren't all pawns in a corporate game 24:7, so there are many reasons for people to work they way they do. One would hope they are freely choosing their work roles and not living their lives according to the dictats of gender equality statistics.

chowells 4y ago
What is this mysterious "nature of people" that is neither physiological nor the result of learned behavior?