6 ms·

How does talking about it fix it? Wouldn't behaving as if we are living in a world where there is no underrepresented group in tech be better? Where it is no

How does talking about it fix it? Wouldn't behaving as if we are living in a world where there is no underrepresented group in tech be better? Where it is no surprise that a woman be interviewed and hired for a position? That a little girl building robots and taking apart electronics is just kind of the way things go? That encouraging all children to excel in tech is the norm? Where it is a little strange that a women be asked to speak about a social issue at a tech conference? It seems that calling attention to bad actors all of the time is kind of like calling attention to school shooters -- suddenly, to the younger more impressionable generation, there is a new alternative to their behavior that they were previously unaware of.

rayiner 12y ago
You're assuming a world where the fair arrangement is the only stable equilibrium. Remove overt discrimination, and the world moves to that equilibrium. Empirical evidence shows that this is not the case. If you look at the dynamics of gender representation in law and medicine, two professions where female representation has gone from 5-10% to 50% over the last 50 years, you can see it behaves like a beam in plastic deformation. You move them to one point through discrimination, and it stays there when the force is removed. You move it to another point through affirmative action, and it stays there when the force is removed.
- clavalle 12y ago
  Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? Discussions are how you transmit ideas about proactive behaviors, you can't separate them. > I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Diversity isn't an action you can get on with, its a goal you pursue through actions. Discussion is a pretty big part of moving from a goal to something actionable. Of course, discussion can be poorly focussed (e.g., not addressing how to take action when the goal is already accepted), which is a problem, but its not a problem with discussion vs. something other than discussion, its a problem with having the wrong discussion.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    I would probably vote for an affirmative action law on the tech industry (with the hopefully obvious qualification that I'd have to actually read it first). I would challenge you to scrape together enough people who "heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing" who would also put their money where their mouth is. > What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Then stop discussing and commit to some proactive behavior. You express a nice sentiment, but you're still all words.
    - clavalle 12y ago
      I live it every day. That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on.
      - saraid216 12y ago
        > I live it every day. Really? Link the bill, please. I'd be happy to signal boost it. > That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on. I don't think you understand what "proactive" means. What you're talking about is like getting into your wheelchair everyday and expecting your legs to fix themselves as a result. > while you have already implemented the action items This is the vaguest part of your analogy. What were the action items? If you wanted to improve system performance, and your action item was splitting the engineering department into two groups, how does implementing that help meet the goal? The "meetings" and discussion happen because people disagree on what the action items should be. You feel you know better than everyone else, and that's a pretty common sentiment. A company has the luxury of splitting apart or shutting down when people can't agree on a strategy to proceed; a society does not, because that generally involves the usual suspects justifying war. Now, it turns out that society is large enough that it has millions of departments, and some of these departments have picked action items to go on. Some of these items worked; some of them were poorly implemented; some of them were well-executed and still failed. The discussion continues because people have drawn different conclusions from these events. Of course, who invited you to the meeting? Why are you here, if you're getting no value from it?
- sosuke 12y ago
  I never considered law and medicine, is there anything special they did to alter the balance that tech could adopt?
  - vellum 12y ago
    One factor is that it's easier for women to apply to med school or law school because there's no required major. Law, especially, was a default choice for liberal arts majors who didn't know what else to do. If you want to be a CS major, however, you need to commit freshman year.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > One factor is that it's easier for women to apply to med school or law school because there's no required major. This is true of most graduate and professional programs. I had a friend in college whose undergraduate degree was in Rhetoric and Communication, who then went into a Physics Ph.D. program. > If you want to be a CS major, however, you need to commit freshman year. Whether that's true or not depends on the school, and its not necessarily generally particularly true of CS, though it may be more true of CS at particular institutions. OTOH, unlike law or medicine, where a particular professional degree is essentially mandatory [1], technology has no particular degree requirement (while a CS degree is helpful, particularly for the best jobs, its not a legal requirement to enter the field and plenty of people in the field don't have a CS degree.) Anyhow, I'm not sure any of that is relevant -- why is the requirement for a particular degree, or a requirement to commit early for a degree, a barrier for women entering the field? Are you arguing that women are inherently less likely to commit early? [1] in some states, its still possible to meet the requirements to practice law through what amounts to a private apprenticeship rather than professional degree.
      - vellum 12y ago
        Anyhow, I'm not sure any of that is relevant -- why is the requirement for a particular degree, or a requirement to commit early for a degree, a barrier for women entering the field? When discussing women in tech, people bring up how the candidate pool mirrors the pipeline. See the recent discussion on Google. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813310 Are you arguing that women are inherently less likely to commit early? Guys are more likely to start coding in high school or earlier, so they're the ones starting freshman year. For example, the number of women who take the AP CS test is ~18%, which is close to the % of CS degree grads who are women. http://www.exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics http://www.exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics If you want to graduate in 4 years, you have to start your CS program freshman year. You can switch later, but you're going to have to pay for more semesters, or work harder and cram in more units. And yes, you can start coding after 22, but it's an uphill battle.
- belorn 12y ago
  Female representation in the Psychologist profession has gone from 30% in 1975 to over 70% in 2008, and the number of men is declining every year. So what is the solution to that problem? less discrimination against men? affirmative action?
pessimizer 12y ago
The same way that talking about every problem helps you to fix it. Is there something unique about racism and sexism that solves itself if you ignore it? >calling attention to bad actors all of the time is kind of like calling attention to school shooters That talking about sexists makes sexists celebrities, and other people will want to become sexists so people will finally listen to them, too?
- stcredzero 12y ago
  Is there something unique about racism and sexism that solves itself if you ignore it? Through some historical circumstance, or due to the sensitive nature of the subjects, there is a lot of energy expended around these topics which is counterproductive and divisive. Calling out bad actions is good and necessary. Vilifying people, not so much. (In this, I am not accusing you, but making general observations.) The group dynamics of targeting and scapegoating are part of the unsavory range of human behavior manifested by sexism and racism, yet these can be manifest under the banner of fighting those sexism and racism. Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but you seem to be asking about why many people don't want to engage. It's often this dynamic which makes many otherwise well meaning people wary and weary of talking about these issues. Another way of putting it: What you're saying is that the industry should just start acting like a community of equals and get on with it. I entirely agree. We should also keep in mind that community is key here. This will work if there is some sense of community and will fail if there is only the facade of community with people paying lip service, playing parts, and wearing masks. There is a reason why Nelson Mandela went for "Truth and Reconciliation." In this, a bottom-up approach may have fundamental advantages over a top-down one.
Mz 12y ago
Talking about it helps promote awareness. Also, talking about it can (but does not automatically) promote ideas about how to effectively move forward so that those people who wish to do so can act on it. She makes an excellent point that people who really care about promoting women in tech should just hire her to talk on whatever she normally talks about at tech conferences. In some sense, hiring women to only talk about "women in tech" is keeping them in a pink collar ghetto. It sort of assumes she has no real expertise to offer that would matter to REAL tech folks: You know, successful MEN. (Basically.)
- snipeyhead 12y ago
  >> people who really care about promoting women in tech >> should just hire her to talk on whatever she normally talks about at tech conferences. In some sense, hiring women to only talk about "women in tech" is keeping them in a pink collar ghetto. It sort of assumes she has no real expertise to offer that would matter to REAL tech folks: You know, successful MEN. Pretty much this. (I wrote the article in question.) I'm not even saying we shouldn't talk about women in tech. I have absolutely no problem with - and in fact encourage - discussions about ways to improve diversity at conferences, online, wherever we can.
mrbenjihao 12y ago
Progress isn't made from choosing to be ignorant about issues that are laid right in front of you. Get communities talking about issues, otherwise all you'll be left with is a bunch of folks who think everything is fine the way it is and will fix itself eventually.

rayiner 12y ago

You're assuming a world where the fair arrangement is the only stable equilibrium. Remove overt discrimination, and the world moves to that equilibrium. Empirical evidence shows that this is not the case. If you look at the dynamics of gender representation in law and medicine, two professions where female representation has gone from 5-10% to 50% over the last 50 years, you can see it behaves like a beam in plastic deformation. You move them to one point through discrimination, and it stays there when the force is removed. You move it to another point through affirmative action, and it stays there when the force is removed.

clavalle 12y ago
Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? Discussions are how you transmit ideas about proactive behaviors, you can't separate them. > I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Diversity isn't an action you can get on with, its a goal you pursue through actions. Discussion is a pretty big part of moving from a goal to something actionable. Of course, discussion can be poorly focussed (e.g., not addressing how to take action when the goal is already accepted), which is a problem, but its not a problem with discussion vs. something other than discussion, its a problem with having the wrong discussion.
- saraid216 12y ago
  I would probably vote for an affirmative action law on the tech industry (with the hopefully obvious qualification that I'd have to actually read it first). I would challenge you to scrape together enough people who "heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing" who would also put their money where their mouth is. > What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Then stop discussing and commit to some proactive behavior. You express a nice sentiment, but you're still all words.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    I live it every day. That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      > I live it every day. Really? Link the bill, please. I'd be happy to signal boost it. > That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on. I don't think you understand what "proactive" means. What you're talking about is like getting into your wheelchair everyday and expecting your legs to fix themselves as a result. > while you have already implemented the action items This is the vaguest part of your analogy. What were the action items? If you wanted to improve system performance, and your action item was splitting the engineering department into two groups, how does implementing that help meet the goal? The "meetings" and discussion happen because people disagree on what the action items should be. You feel you know better than everyone else, and that's a pretty common sentiment. A company has the luxury of splitting apart or shutting down when people can't agree on a strategy to proceed; a society does not, because that generally involves the usual suspects justifying war. Now, it turns out that society is large enough that it has millions of departments, and some of these departments have picked action items to go on. Some of these items worked; some of them were poorly implemented; some of them were well-executed and still failed. The discussion continues because people have drawn different conclusions from these events. Of course, who invited you to the meeting? Why are you here, if you're getting no value from it?
sosuke 12y ago
I never considered law and medicine, is there anything special they did to alter the balance that tech could adopt?
- vellum 12y ago
  One factor is that it's easier for women to apply to med school or law school because there's no required major. Law, especially, was a default choice for liberal arts majors who didn't know what else to do. If you want to be a CS major, however, you need to commit freshman year.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > One factor is that it's easier for women to apply to med school or law school because there's no required major. This is true of most graduate and professional programs. I had a friend in college whose undergraduate degree was in Rhetoric and Communication, who then went into a Physics Ph.D. program. > If you want to be a CS major, however, you need to commit freshman year. Whether that's true or not depends on the school, and its not necessarily generally particularly true of CS, though it may be more true of CS at particular institutions. OTOH, unlike law or medicine, where a particular professional degree is essentially mandatory [1], technology has no particular degree requirement (while a CS degree is helpful, particularly for the best jobs, its not a legal requirement to enter the field and plenty of people in the field don't have a CS degree.) Anyhow, I'm not sure any of that is relevant -- why is the requirement for a particular degree, or a requirement to commit early for a degree, a barrier for women entering the field? Are you arguing that women are inherently less likely to commit early? [1] in some states, its still possible to meet the requirements to practice law through what amounts to a private apprenticeship rather than professional degree.
    - vellum 12y ago
      Anyhow, I'm not sure any of that is relevant -- why is the requirement for a particular degree, or a requirement to commit early for a degree, a barrier for women entering the field? When discussing women in tech, people bring up how the candidate pool mirrors the pipeline. See the recent discussion on Google. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7813310 Are you arguing that women are inherently less likely to commit early? Guys are more likely to start coding in high school or earlier, so they're the ones starting freshman year. For example, the number of women who take the AP CS test is ~18%, which is close to the % of CS degree grads who are women. http://www.exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics http://www.exploringcs.org/resources/cs-statistics If you want to graduate in 4 years, you have to start your CS program freshman year. You can switch later, but you're going to have to pay for more semesters, or work harder and cram in more units. And yes, you can start coding after 22, but it's an uphill battle.
belorn 12y ago
Female representation in the Psychologist profession has gone from 30% in 1975 to over 70% in 2008, and the number of men is declining every year. So what is the solution to that problem? less discrimination against men? affirmative action?

pessimizer 12y ago

The same way that talking about every problem helps you to fix it. Is there something unique about racism and sexism that solves itself if you ignore it? >calling attention to bad actors all of the time is kind of like calling attention to school shooters That talking about sexists makes sexists celebrities, and other people will want to become sexists so people will finally listen to them, too?

stcredzero 12y ago
Is there something unique about racism and sexism that solves itself if you ignore it? Through some historical circumstance, or due to the sensitive nature of the subjects, there is a lot of energy expended around these topics which is counterproductive and divisive. Calling out bad actions is good and necessary. Vilifying people, not so much. (In this, I am not accusing you, but making general observations.) The group dynamics of targeting and scapegoating are part of the unsavory range of human behavior manifested by sexism and racism, yet these can be manifest under the banner of fighting those sexism and racism. Again, I'm not accusing you of this, but you seem to be asking about why many people don't want to engage. It's often this dynamic which makes many otherwise well meaning people wary and weary of talking about these issues. Another way of putting it: What you're saying is that the industry should just start acting like a community of equals and get on with it. I entirely agree. We should also keep in mind that community is key here. This will work if there is some sense of community and will fail if there is only the facade of community with people paying lip service, playing parts, and wearing masks. There is a reason why Nelson Mandela went for "Truth and Reconciliation." In this, a bottom-up approach may have fundamental advantages over a top-down one.

Mz 12y ago

Talking about it helps promote awareness. Also, talking about it can (but does not automatically) promote ideas about how to effectively move forward so that those people who wish to do so can act on it. She makes an excellent point that people who really care about promoting women in tech should just hire her to talk on whatever she normally talks about at tech conferences. In some sense, hiring women to only talk about "women in tech" is keeping them in a pink collar ghetto. It sort of assumes she has no real expertise to offer that would matter to REAL tech folks: You know, successful MEN. (Basically.)

snipeyhead 12y ago
>> people who really care about promoting women in tech >> should just hire her to talk on whatever she normally talks about at tech conferences. In some sense, hiring women to only talk about "women in tech" is keeping them in a pink collar ghetto. It sort of assumes she has no real expertise to offer that would matter to REAL tech folks: You know, successful MEN. Pretty much this. (I wrote the article in question.) I'm not even saying we shouldn't talk about women in tech. I have absolutely no problem with - and in fact encourage - discussions about ways to improve diversity at conferences, online, wherever we can.

mrbenjihao 12y ago

Progress isn't made from choosing to be ignorant about issues that are laid right in front of you. Get communities talking about issues, otherwise all you'll be left with is a bunch of folks who think everything is fine the way it is and will fix itself eventually.