3 ms·

Some possibilities: - The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position t

Some possibilities: - The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation. - Men (white or not) who have worked hard in their education and their profession to be able to work and succeed in tech feel frustrated when their efforts are downplayed or dismissed because they are alleged to be 'playing the game on easy mode'. - People (male or female, of diverse races and backgrounds) who believe in the value of hard work and have actually seen such work pay off in their profession - i.e. who have experienced meritocracy in action - are frustrated by those who claim that a meritocracy (however imperfect) does not exist and that all tech hiring is biased by some sort of 'old boys network' (which is an insult to women who did well, without whinging, by their own efforts in intellectual labor and networking)

pc86 13y ago
Speaking only to your first point, I don’t think the implication is that the white man holds a job that a better qualified non-white-man should have gotten, I think the implication is often times that the white man should not have gotten the job because it would have been preferable to hire an equally qualified non-white-man solely on the basis of his or her non-white-mannedness. This often makes people defensive (I have been as guilty of this as anyone else, as a white man) because it may seem that they’re being told they are “taking” a job from someone who deserves it more not based on merit or even tangential career skills like networking or interview prowess, but just because they have a different skin color and/or chromosomes.
- mhaymo 13y ago
  Postulating "bias" in the hiring process does seem to imply that a non-deserving or less-qualified candidate was hired. Saying that being a non-white-male is itself a merit doesn't change that, and is also highly contentious.
rada 13y ago
The implication, stated or not (usually not)... You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).
- nostrademons 13y ago
  Theorique - to my eye, at least - was responding in kind to the academic arguments presented by lkrubner. He presents three possible explanations for the effect that lkrubner discusses. Nowhere in there is a value judgment, only three hypotheses. A good rule of thumb for when a conversation has become personal and emotions are getting involved is when the word "You" comes up. Conversations that stay on a strictly academic level talk about the ideas involved, not the people who espouse those ideas.
  - rada 13y ago
    Ah, the tone argument... I Am Too Emotional, causing me to use Incorrect Words. Except, here is what lkrubner said, emphasis mine: The same is true about this conversation, and _your reaction_. See how we were, in fact, having a thread where we all address each other personally? How you made up an arbitrary rule to discount my comment just because it made you uncomfortable? Next time, check your own emotional state before jumping with with a lecture on someone else's. And try to argue on substance, not tone, please.
- theorique 13y ago
  Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men". As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry. Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.

pc86 13y ago

Speaking only to your first point, I don’t think the implication is that the white man holds a job that a better qualified non-white-man should have gotten, I think the implication is often times that the white man should not have gotten the job because it would have been preferable to hire an equally qualified non-white-man solely on the basis of his or her non-white-mannedness. This often makes people defensive (I have been as guilty of this as anyone else, as a white man) because it may seem that they’re being told they are “taking” a job from someone who deserves it more not based on merit or even tangential career skills like networking or interview prowess, but just because they have a different skin color and/or chromosomes.

mhaymo 13y ago
Postulating "bias" in the hiring process does seem to imply that a non-deserving or less-qualified candidate was hired. Saying that being a non-white-male is itself a merit doesn't change that, and is also highly contentious.

rada 13y ago

The implication, stated or not (usually not)... You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).

nostrademons 13y ago
Theorique - to my eye, at least - was responding in kind to the academic arguments presented by lkrubner. He presents three possible explanations for the effect that lkrubner discusses. Nowhere in there is a value judgment, only three hypotheses. A good rule of thumb for when a conversation has become personal and emotions are getting involved is when the word "You" comes up. Conversations that stay on a strictly academic level talk about the ideas involved, not the people who espouse those ideas.
- rada 13y ago
  Ah, the tone argument... I Am Too Emotional, causing me to use Incorrect Words. Except, here is what lkrubner said, emphasis mine: The same is true about this conversation, and _your reaction_. See how we were, in fact, having a thread where we all address each other personally? How you made up an arbitrary rule to discount my comment just because it made you uncomfortable? Next time, check your own emotional state before jumping with with a lecture on someone else's. And try to argue on substance, not tone, please.
theorique 13y ago
Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men". As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry. Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.