7 ms·

> If you choose not to address it, it is then entirely valid for people to read into this that you hold certain views about diversity they don't want to be asso

> If you choose not to address it, it is then entirely valid for people to read into this that you hold certain views about diversity they don't want to be associated with. Are you saying women don't think they'll get a slot at a user group that is begging for anyone to talk up a slot and are quite clear about the urgency of it? I feel like that's sexist somehow, like women fundamentally aren't able to realise user groups would take anyone that comes. This overall feels like trying to pretend like there isn't an extreme shortage when basic stats paint a clear picture. > Put another way: I've seen groups entirely fail to get women to speak, and I've seen groups that have had no problems getting women to speak. They're not recruiting from different populations. The logical assumption then is not that there aren't enough women who can speak, but that one of them is failing to identify them and nurture an environment where they are prepared to speak. So you've seen one "Go User Group" get women and another "Go User Group" in the same city/location fail to get women? Or are you talking about different niches? > If this was an example of such a conference, that might be a valid consideration, but this conference is organized by a for profit company and appears not to have taken CFPs. There are a whole lot of such companies of varying sizes - my girlfriend used to work for a 10,000 employee conference operator. I see we've gone from talking in generalisation to being specific because generalisations aren't working for you? I'm going to ignore all your case specific response to a generalised comment thread. > "My way of thinking" was that e.g. the example of the investment bank was inherently 1) racist, 2) sexist because they knew and were told that had the net effect of weighing details of candidates education that skewed the outcomes but that they had no evidence affected candidate performance, and should stop. No candidates would have any legal recourse for discrimination if they stopped caring about irrelevant details that favored specific schools that reduced the diversity in their hiring. You explictly said you need to look outside your applicant pool if you're not diverse enough. That, to me, says you'll reject people in your applicant pool because they're not the right gender or race. At which point it's discrimination and racism and sexism and illegal. > If you don't want to discriminate, you take steps to ensure the pool you get your candidates from isn't massively biased, especially when it is pointed out to you. If you stick with a severely biased pool despite having been told repeatedly about the bias, then it is natural to assume the reason is that you're perfectly happy to discriminate. I don't think you understood my point, either that or you're ignoring it because it doesn't fit with your point of view. > In other words: Lack of diversity in your applicant pool is not a reasonable excuse. Actually, it's a perfectly legal excuse. Can't be sued for not hiring someone who didn't apply. And is a reasonable excuse for any where they have an applicant pool. As pointed out, skipping over your applicant pool for others because of their sex and gender is illegal and sexist and racist. And I can't think of any reason sexism or racism should be acceptable.

vidarh 3y ago
> Are you saying women don't think they'll get a slot at a user group that is begging for anyone to talk up a slot and are quite clear about the urgency of it? I feel like that's sexist somehow, like women fundamentally aren't able to realise user groups would take anyone that comes. This overall feels like trying to pretend like there isn't an extreme shortage when basic stats paint a clear picture. No, I'm saying that it is human nature for all of us to be more likely to see ourselves doing something of we see people we find it easier to identify doing the same thing. If you struggle to understand the effect of this, then try to talk to people who are underrepresented in various contexts about their experiences sometime. > So you've seen one "Go User Group" get women and another "Go User Group" in the same city/location fail to get women? Or are you talking about different niches? Same niche, same city. >I see we've gone from talking in generalisation to being specific because generalisations aren't working for you? Generalisations work just fine too, but we both know you're using generalisations to avoid defending the case referenced in the article that you know is indefensible. You're not fooling anyone. Case in point: > I'm going to ignore all your case specific response to a generalised thread. How convenient for you to ignore the things you have no response to. I'm going to take that as you conceding those points, because you have nothing. > You explictly said you need to look outside your applicant pool if you're not diverse enough. That, to me, says you'll reject people in your applicant pool because they're not the right gender or race. At which point it's discrimination and racism and sexism and illegal. There's nothing illegal in any jurisdiction I know of with looking to widen your applicant pool if you realize it is biased. But nice try at justifying your defence of discriminatory practices by trying to accuse me of it for arguing for addressing biases. > As pointed out, skipping over your applicant pool for others because of their sex and gender is illegal and sexist and racist. And I can't think of any reason sexism or racism should be acceptable. And yet you're trying hard to defend them by trying to equate rooting out biases with discrimination. If only your support for it wasn't so wildly transparent. It fools nobody.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  > Same niche, same city. Got to assume the organisers for one are dodgy then. Just curious, what cities have multiple user groups for the same niche? > Generalisations work just fine too, but we both know you're using generalisations to avoid defending the case referenced in the article that you know is indefensible. You're not fooling anyone. Case in point: Bad faith comment. I am not defending the case referenced, it does appear indefensible. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't want to admit that. I don't care, I was making a generalised statement in regards to women speakers at conferences and how organisers appear to have serious trouble recruiting them. To which you responded with a generalised response about skipping over applicant pools. Then suddenly it became specific to this case. > How convenient for you to ignore the things you have no response to. I'm going to take that as you conceding those points, because you have nothing. No, ignoring things that are out of scope makes sense. And yea, if the company makes money and has someone full time and is inviting people. It's not hard to invite women. There are some extremely talented women who give talks and if you're got the money to afford them there isn't much of a reason not to cough up and pay them. > And yet you're trying hard to defend them by trying to equate rooting out biases with discrimination. If only your support for it wasn't so wildly transparent. It fools nobody. Bad faith comment. As pointed out if you want to improve diversity then you must increase diversity in your applicant pool not skip over your applicant pool as you suggest. There has been no defence of anything other than people selecting applicants from their applicant pool.

vidarh 3y ago

> Are you saying women don't think they'll get a slot at a user group that is begging for anyone to talk up a slot and are quite clear about the urgency of it? I feel like that's sexist somehow, like women fundamentally aren't able to realise user groups would take anyone that comes. This overall feels like trying to pretend like there isn't an extreme shortage when basic stats paint a clear picture. No, I'm saying that it is human nature for all of us to be more likely to see ourselves doing something of we see people we find it easier to identify doing the same thing. If you struggle to understand the effect of this, then try to talk to people who are underrepresented in various contexts about their experiences sometime. > So you've seen one "Go User Group" get women and another "Go User Group" in the same city/location fail to get women? Or are you talking about different niches? Same niche, same city. >I see we've gone from talking in generalisation to being specific because generalisations aren't working for you? Generalisations work just fine too, but we both know you're using generalisations to avoid defending the case referenced in the article that you know is indefensible. You're not fooling anyone. Case in point: > I'm going to ignore all your case specific response to a generalised thread. How convenient for you to ignore the things you have no response to. I'm going to take that as you conceding those points, because you have nothing. > You explictly said you need to look outside your applicant pool if you're not diverse enough. That, to me, says you'll reject people in your applicant pool because they're not the right gender or race. At which point it's discrimination and racism and sexism and illegal. There's nothing illegal in any jurisdiction I know of with looking to widen your applicant pool if you realize it is biased. But nice try at justifying your defence of discriminatory practices by trying to accuse me of it for arguing for addressing biases. > As pointed out, skipping over your applicant pool for others because of their sex and gender is illegal and sexist and racist. And I can't think of any reason sexism or racism should be acceptable. And yet you're trying hard to defend them by trying to equate rooting out biases with discrimination. If only your support for it wasn't so wildly transparent. It fools nobody.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
> Same niche, same city. Got to assume the organisers for one are dodgy then. Just curious, what cities have multiple user groups for the same niche? > Generalisations work just fine too, but we both know you're using generalisations to avoid defending the case referenced in the article that you know is indefensible. You're not fooling anyone. Case in point: Bad faith comment. I am not defending the case referenced, it does appear indefensible. I don't understand why you think I wouldn't want to admit that. I don't care, I was making a generalised statement in regards to women speakers at conferences and how organisers appear to have serious trouble recruiting them. To which you responded with a generalised response about skipping over applicant pools. Then suddenly it became specific to this case. > How convenient for you to ignore the things you have no response to. I'm going to take that as you conceding those points, because you have nothing. No, ignoring things that are out of scope makes sense. And yea, if the company makes money and has someone full time and is inviting people. It's not hard to invite women. There are some extremely talented women who give talks and if you're got the money to afford them there isn't much of a reason not to cough up and pay them. > And yet you're trying hard to defend them by trying to equate rooting out biases with discrimination. If only your support for it wasn't so wildly transparent. It fools nobody. Bad faith comment. As pointed out if you want to improve diversity then you must increase diversity in your applicant pool not skip over your applicant pool as you suggest. There has been no defence of anything other than people selecting applicants from their applicant pool.