5 ms·

"The company is growing, and we have the opportunity to improve in many areas — including the number of women in leadership positions. I am confident

"The company is growing, and we have the opportunity to improve in many areas — including the number of women in leadership positions. I am confident in our ability to recruit women at the executive level, as we have made a point to do so at Hipmunk, where more than half of the executives are women." I don't know about anyone else, but comments like that make a company less desirable as a place to work because factors like skill, talent, productivity and effectiveness become de-emphasized in recruiting and promotion relative to issues surrounding identity politics. I don't see how permitting (or worse yet fostering) an environment where office politics or identity politics can flourish is a good thing. I am seeing identity politics issues creeping into decision making more and more often and find it positively toxic. When you "make a point" to recruit/promote one group over any other on the basis of a demographic box they fit into, you are implicitly discriminating against people who don't fit into that box. Furthermore, when "making a point" goes so far that you've exceeded the 50% mark ("more than half are [insert identifier for someone that belongs to a particular group]") then that certainly qualifies as active discrimination. I'm 100% in favor of equal opportunity, but ham-fisted hypocritical approaches like this are as bad as what they are trying to fix. Politicking in any form is toxic. If someone created a petition to now remove Steve Huffman, I'd sign it. I highly recommend this recent peer-reviewed academic study demonstrating discrimination in Academia: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

smrtinsert 11y ago
How is it toxic if representation doesn't even equal general populace? Men are clearly getting in no problem. This isn't a case of over correction, it's about seeing if they can look past historical biases towards men and be more open towards hiring for the future. The study you linked describes current faculty expressing a desire to bring it towards a balance. I'm not sure where the toxicity is created.
- malandrew 11y ago
  "more than half of the executives are women" === over-correction Would it be okay for a company to only hire women as executives since women are a minority of the executives in this industry? Technically that isn't over-correction using your definition. "The study you linked describes current faculty expressing a desire to bring it towards a balance." So if you've got XY chromosomes and you're finishing your post-graduate degree who is a solid candidate for a position in academia and that is where you want to work, then you're getting screwed right now through absolutely no fault of your own just because you happen to have XY chromosomes. That candidate is paying for the failures of past generations. Do you think that is fair?
  - smrtinsert 11y ago
    That is exactly one company, not nearly a series.
    - malandrew 11y ago
      ... and?
disantlor 11y ago
There are so many subtle factors working against non-white-men that it's impossible to be totally aware of them all. Making a point of correcting (even if it's somewhat of an over-correction) is not a perfect solution but realistically its better than pretending there isn't an issue, or saying your for equality as if that's all it takes. You'd vote to remove Steve because he said one are to improve is in having more women (i.e. more diversitiy of opinion and experience) in leadership positions?
- malandrew 11y ago
  It's not longer more. His "making a point" has already exceeded 50% by his own admission. That's over-correction and he doesn't see a problem in that? I'm in favor of people who try to achieve equality. When you adopt a policy that results in over-correction and don't steer back to a position of equality, then the side effects are indistinguishable from the disease it was meant to cure.
  - disantlor 11y ago
    Are the effects really indistinguishable? Ok maybe you have a slightly smaller chance of getting a job at Reddit. At least you can take comfort in the knowledge that in almost any conceivable institution or situation you're doing doing pretty well. I'm assuming your a white man (like myself) but please correct me if I'm wrong. Point is: we've had a good run. If a few extra women get hired at Reddit, we're still doing pretty good in the balance.
    - malandrew 11y ago
      I'm mostly white and adopt a cisgender disposition, but identify as agender. If you think this is a change in attitudes that is isolated to just reddit and hipmunk then you haven't been paying attention. There is someone with whom I work with or worked that often states/stated how much she hates|dislikes white guys|males|bros|dudes. Yes, those exact words or combination thereof. This happens/happened at least once a week if not more often. It is/was not even subtle or discrete. Sometimes these statements would be uttered aggressively in meetings with a bunch of people present. The culture in SV is such that everyone pretty much tolerates/accepts these statements. If the racial adjective where switched with any other to describe a different race and/or the gendered plural noun were switched for one that described women or anyone else on the gender spectrum, that person would already be talking to HR if not out the door already. Furthermore, this person is/was involved in hiring, which means it's likely gender is a consideration in hire / no hire decisions made. If this isn't toxic, then I don't know what qualifies as toxic. Another example of the toxicity of this was when I saw Rena Kopelman (of the Kopelman Foundation) giving a talk about how to increase diversity and opportunity for under-privileged groups. I was totally on board with a lot of the talk until she start railing against efforts to making it easier for talented individuals with the right skills to emigrate to the US in search of better opportunities in the US technology industry. I don't see how an anti-immigration position does anything but further reinforce barriers that discriminate against those that didn't have the privilege of being born in the right country. In terms of privileges, my gender and race have been very very minor advantages. By far the number one privilege I enjoy is having had the opportunity to become a native English speaker despite the fact that English was not my first language. I moved to the states when I was four years old speaking another language, but I moved here early enough that no one can tell I'm not American. Speaking English and not having and accent is many times more advantageous than my gender. After that the privilege of having moved to and grown up in the US comes next (growing up in Western Europe would have also been advantageous, but not nearly as much as growing up in the US for the career I have). Next up comes growing up relatively affluent. Far behind those three would be being mixed race, but mostly caucasian (I got enough Anglo-Saxon genes to dominate the South American genes). Well behind my racial makeup is my gender. I actually can't think of a situation where it was a factor in why I have the jobs I had. In my current job, I was referred to the recruiting department by a well known open source developer who works at the company. I got to know him and earned the recommendation by contributing to open source projects of his under a pseudonym. If you are a US citizen (or Australian citizen because of the E-3 visa) and speak English natively, you are already far more privileged than most of the white males in the world in terms of getting a job in Silicon Valley. Like I said in my other comment, my position here isn't about me or any privileges I personally benefit from, but about the environment that is being fostered that my children will inherit once I decide to have a family. If I were about 50-55 years old today, that could be my daughter that gets a position in academia due to her gender or it could be my son that is turned down for position in Academia due to his gender. My position isn't about "us having a good run" and trying to maintain that for my gender. I agree with the goals, but oppose the means being used to achieve it. If you want to see other first hand examples of this toxicity in action, just go look up some op-ed pieces from The Advocate discussing the discourse around "white male privilege" from the perspective of a gay or bisexual white male. It's entirely possible to be a white male and know what it is like to be discriminated against. If you happen to experience discrimination for other reasons besides your race and gender, you become aware of how the current attitudes of trying to solve discrimination with discrimination is toxic and counter productive as it breeds resentment and opposition from those who would otherwise be allies. http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/01/20/im-white-cisgender-gay-man http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/01/20/im-wh... http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/12/08/op-ed-privilege-and-advocacy http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/12/08/op-ed-privileg... http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2014/04/25/op-ed-grappling-what-people-see-my-privilege http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2014/04/25/op... I'm an ally of equality, but I am not an ally of those that adopt tactics to achieve equality like those being promoted by Steve Huffman.
JoergR 11y ago
"I'm 100% in favor of equal opportunity," can never be followed by a but.
malandrew 11y ago
FWIW, the litmus test I use to judge these things like what Huffman is engaging in is not my own self interest, but the self interest of my kids when I choose to start a family. I have a basically 50/50 chance of having a boy or girl. If I have a girl, I don't want her to inherit the world we have. If I have a boy, I don't want him to inherit the world we're creating.
Bootvis 11y ago
I hate to argue morals over the internet but this policy can make economical sense. If you're willing to assume that companies (including your own company) (unconsciously) discriminate against women then it makes sense to actively recruit women. Demand for women at a particular level will be lower so you get more for less.
- malandrew 11y ago
  "Demand for women at a particular level will be lower so you get more for less." I don't think that is your intent, but it sounds like you are you proposing that an equally qualified woman hire be paid less than their male counterpart. That said, demand is not less. Demand couldn't be higher. I haven't worked anywhere in Silicon Valley that didn't wish that they had more female employees and more female candidates, especially for engineering positions. The problem isn't demand, but (1) supply and (2) the fact that most people have no idea how to find qualified women who are in the industry. I won't comment on any particular one of my past employers or current employer, but I have worked at companies that really struggled with the latter. It's a hard problem to solve that is really demanding of attention to succeed at. Furthermore, when you're trying to get traction, foster growth and improve your product, you don't have time to focus extra effort trying to hire one particular demographic in the current job market. Right now, everyone is struggling to find and recruit any qualified engineers regardless of whatever demographics they might happen to represent.
  - Bootvis 11y ago
    My comment wasn't meant to be normative but I can actually imagine an employer doing so while playing the CSR card. Maybe not in SV but any place where talent is not that scarce: sure.

smrtinsert 11y ago

How is it toxic if representation doesn't even equal general populace? Men are clearly getting in no problem. This isn't a case of over correction, it's about seeing if they can look past historical biases towards men and be more open towards hiring for the future. The study you linked describes current faculty expressing a desire to bring it towards a balance. I'm not sure where the toxicity is created.

malandrew 11y ago
"more than half of the executives are women" === over-correction Would it be okay for a company to only hire women as executives since women are a minority of the executives in this industry? Technically that isn't over-correction using your definition. "The study you linked describes current faculty expressing a desire to bring it towards a balance." So if you've got XY chromosomes and you're finishing your post-graduate degree who is a solid candidate for a position in academia and that is where you want to work, then you're getting screwed right now through absolutely no fault of your own just because you happen to have XY chromosomes. That candidate is paying for the failures of past generations. Do you think that is fair?
- smrtinsert 11y ago
  That is exactly one company, not nearly a series.
  - malandrew 11y ago
    ... and?

disantlor 11y ago

There are so many subtle factors working against non-white-men that it's impossible to be totally aware of them all. Making a point of correcting (even if it's somewhat of an over-correction) is not a perfect solution but realistically its better than pretending there isn't an issue, or saying your for equality as if that's all it takes. You'd vote to remove Steve because he said one are to improve is in having more women (i.e. more diversitiy of opinion and experience) in leadership positions?

malandrew 11y ago
It's not longer more. His "making a point" has already exceeded 50% by his own admission. That's over-correction and he doesn't see a problem in that? I'm in favor of people who try to achieve equality. When you adopt a policy that results in over-correction and don't steer back to a position of equality, then the side effects are indistinguishable from the disease it was meant to cure.
- disantlor 11y ago
  Are the effects really indistinguishable? Ok maybe you have a slightly smaller chance of getting a job at Reddit. At least you can take comfort in the knowledge that in almost any conceivable institution or situation you're doing doing pretty well. I'm assuming your a white man (like myself) but please correct me if I'm wrong. Point is: we've had a good run. If a few extra women get hired at Reddit, we're still doing pretty good in the balance.
  - malandrew 11y ago
    I'm mostly white and adopt a cisgender disposition, but identify as agender. If you think this is a change in attitudes that is isolated to just reddit and hipmunk then you haven't been paying attention. There is someone with whom I work with or worked that often states/stated how much she hates|dislikes white guys|males|bros|dudes. Yes, those exact words or combination thereof. This happens/happened at least once a week if not more often. It is/was not even subtle or discrete. Sometimes these statements would be uttered aggressively in meetings with a bunch of people present. The culture in SV is such that everyone pretty much tolerates/accepts these statements. If the racial adjective where switched with any other to describe a different race and/or the gendered plural noun were switched for one that described women or anyone else on the gender spectrum, that person would already be talking to HR if not out the door already. Furthermore, this person is/was involved in hiring, which means it's likely gender is a consideration in hire / no hire decisions made. If this isn't toxic, then I don't know what qualifies as toxic. Another example of the toxicity of this was when I saw Rena Kopelman (of the Kopelman Foundation) giving a talk about how to increase diversity and opportunity for under-privileged groups. I was totally on board with a lot of the talk until she start railing against efforts to making it easier for talented individuals with the right skills to emigrate to the US in search of better opportunities in the US technology industry. I don't see how an anti-immigration position does anything but further reinforce barriers that discriminate against those that didn't have the privilege of being born in the right country. In terms of privileges, my gender and race have been very very minor advantages. By far the number one privilege I enjoy is having had the opportunity to become a native English speaker despite the fact that English was not my first language. I moved to the states when I was four years old speaking another language, but I moved here early enough that no one can tell I'm not American. Speaking English and not having and accent is many times more advantageous than my gender. After that the privilege of having moved to and grown up in the US comes next (growing up in Western Europe would have also been advantageous, but not nearly as much as growing up in the US for the career I have). Next up comes growing up relatively affluent. Far behind those three would be being mixed race, but mostly caucasian (I got enough Anglo-Saxon genes to dominate the South American genes). Well behind my racial makeup is my gender. I actually can't think of a situation where it was a factor in why I have the jobs I had. In my current job, I was referred to the recruiting department by a well known open source developer who works at the company. I got to know him and earned the recommendation by contributing to open source projects of his under a pseudonym. If you are a US citizen (or Australian citizen because of the E-3 visa) and speak English natively, you are already far more privileged than most of the white males in the world in terms of getting a job in Silicon Valley. Like I said in my other comment, my position here isn't about me or any privileges I personally benefit from, but about the environment that is being fostered that my children will inherit once I decide to have a family. If I were about 50-55 years old today, that could be my daughter that gets a position in academia due to her gender or it could be my son that is turned down for position in Academia due to his gender. My position isn't about "us having a good run" and trying to maintain that for my gender. I agree with the goals, but oppose the means being used to achieve it. If you want to see other first hand examples of this toxicity in action, just go look up some op-ed pieces from The Advocate discussing the discourse around "white male privilege" from the perspective of a gay or bisexual white male. It's entirely possible to be a white male and know what it is like to be discriminated against. If you happen to experience discrimination for other reasons besides your race and gender, you become aware of how the current attitudes of trying to solve discrimination with discrimination is toxic and counter productive as it breeds resentment and opposition from those who would otherwise be allies. http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/01/20/im-white-cisgender-gay-man http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2011/01/20/im-wh... http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/12/08/op-ed-privilege-and-advocacy http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/12/08/op-ed-privileg... http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2014/04/25/op-ed-grappling-what-people-see-my-privilege http://www.advocate.com/commentary/tyler-curry/2014/04/25/op... I'm an ally of equality, but I am not an ally of those that adopt tactics to achieve equality like those being promoted by Steve Huffman.

JoergR 11y ago

"I'm 100% in favor of equal opportunity," can never be followed by a but.

malandrew 11y ago

FWIW, the litmus test I use to judge these things like what Huffman is engaging in is not my own self interest, but the self interest of my kids when I choose to start a family. I have a basically 50/50 chance of having a boy or girl. If I have a girl, I don't want her to inherit the world we have. If I have a boy, I don't want him to inherit the world we're creating.

Bootvis 11y ago

I hate to argue morals over the internet but this policy can make economical sense. If you're willing to assume that companies (including your own company) (unconsciously) discriminate against women then it makes sense to actively recruit women. Demand for women at a particular level will be lower so you get more for less.

malandrew 11y ago
"Demand for women at a particular level will be lower so you get more for less." I don't think that is your intent, but it sounds like you are you proposing that an equally qualified woman hire be paid less than their male counterpart. That said, demand is not less. Demand couldn't be higher. I haven't worked anywhere in Silicon Valley that didn't wish that they had more female employees and more female candidates, especially for engineering positions. The problem isn't demand, but (1) supply and (2) the fact that most people have no idea how to find qualified women who are in the industry. I won't comment on any particular one of my past employers or current employer, but I have worked at companies that really struggled with the latter. It's a hard problem to solve that is really demanding of attention to succeed at. Furthermore, when you're trying to get traction, foster growth and improve your product, you don't have time to focus extra effort trying to hire one particular demographic in the current job market. Right now, everyone is struggling to find and recruit any qualified engineers regardless of whatever demographics they might happen to represent.
- Bootvis 11y ago
  My comment wasn't meant to be normative but I can actually imagine an employer doing so while playing the CSR card. Maybe not in SV but any place where talent is not that scarce: sure.