6 ms·

I find it baffling everytime someone refers to men and women as separate groups. What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? (In my experien

by tomp 11y ago

I find it baffling everytime someone refers to men and women as separate groups. What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? (In my experience, if you want to talk about "groups" in programming companies, it's mostly geeks vs. non-geeks, with men and women in both groups.)

untog 11y ago
What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? To make two separate groups equal? I don't understand what is complex about that. They are separate groups according to how they are often treated in the workplace.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  It's an idealogical struggle that goes back and forth. For example, from my very rough memory: - People were upset there weren't more women in the armed forces. - The armed forces lowered PT requirements for women so that more women could make it in (less pushups, slower mile times, can sit down in formation) - Currently people are mad because that treats women differently. Among other things, it gives a sense that all women are weak and need extra accommodations, and that can hurt them in the eyes of men in the force. So we have this struggle of wanting to include more women, but we have to figure out how to do it without favoritism.
  - bayesianhorse 11y ago
    The point is that the armed forces don't need the PT requirements, and they are mostly a way of selecting recruits. There are good reasons for increasing diversity, and if that means women, with their naturally lower muscle mass get a lower PT requirement, that is not really favouritism.
robertfw 11y ago
It's easy to say that we're all one group if you're in the dominant group...
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  You presuppose that gender/racial/identity politics groupings are the natural one. They aren't. I do find this easy to say, in spite of the fact that my company has exactly 1 other person of my race (out of 100+) [1]. Though I am in the other "dominant group" (engineering)... [1] This has been the case for most of my career, and my life was not significantly different in the few cases when it wasn't true.
- tomp 11y ago
  I hope you're not serious. I'm a geek, mind and body. Most of my life (school, high school, sports, socializing, university) I was part of the marginalized, made fun of, or outright abused groups. Incidentally, many women had it a lot better that I (they were popular, attractive, outgoing, talkative, ...). Just because some of us (programmers) managed to unexpectedly strike gold (in this economy) doesn't make us "dominant" in most areas of life.
  - bayesianhorse 11y ago
    It's not about "dominance in most areas of life" but rather in a team of developers or communities of developers. Programming is still lucrative enough for most people that they chose this over the job they were originally trained for. That is one of the reasons (and not the only one) women want to be part of such groups, and there they are the minority. Also my perception is not that development teams are necessarily "dominated" by nerds. It's a cliche which is often wrong.
pron 11y ago
In spite of what some may think, these groupings are not based on some essence but on observation and the goals of those of us who seek to change the situation. We don't try to make everything equal, but first and foremost see if there are any obvious power differences in society at large. Since women form a group with a power share that is clearly and significantly lower than that of men, it is useful to treat women as a group for the purpose of enacting change. Again, the goal is not to make everyone the same, but to make sure there aren't any social groups that are somehow marginalized away from society's seats of power, and software happens to be one such seats of power. The categorization into geeks and non-geeks, while perhaps useful for identifying social cliques, is not at all useful for correcting society's power imbalances.
- tomp 11y ago
  You see what you want to see. I see plenty of very powerful women (Merkel, Lagarde, Hillary) and countless powerless men. Hint: what the powerful have in common is not sex, but money. If you really wanted to make a better society, you would focus on eradicating that discrimination and gap. But then, that probably won't win you any friends or popularity contests, so I guess I understand why you focus on the low-hanging fruit.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - tomp 11y ago
      > I see what research has found. Care to cite it? What about the "Women are wonderful" effect [1]? I'm not suggesting that women are uniformly privileged compared to men. But neither will I accept that they are uniformly underprivileged. Sexes are treated differently, sure, but IMO to speak about one sex being privileged over the other is to speak from ignorance or agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E...
cnvogel 11y ago
> What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? Because we should be able to happily enjoy our differences in one area (gender), and still not be judged in our ability to perform something completely unrelated (programming). Obviously a social programme centered on cupcake tasting and yoga is catering to who one might consider stereotypical girls. But there are (I guess, I'm a white male in an engineering job after all) many ladies who don't want to disguise as androgynous (un-gendered?) trying to fit in, just to be able to have the job they want... And, frankly spoken, I for one welcome a more gender balanced office. Because we are diverse and should enjoy interaction with each other. Work related (as equal peers) or not (as different gendeds).
bayesianhorse 11y ago
The point is that there is evident discrimination, even if we (as men) don't perceive it as such. Many of it is subconscious.

by tomp 11y ago

untog 11y ago

What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? To make two separate groups equal? I don't understand what is complex about that. They are separate groups according to how they are often treated in the workplace.

sliverstorm 11y ago
It's an idealogical struggle that goes back and forth. For example, from my very rough memory: - People were upset there weren't more women in the armed forces. - The armed forces lowered PT requirements for women so that more women could make it in (less pushups, slower mile times, can sit down in formation) - Currently people are mad because that treats women differently. Among other things, it gives a sense that all women are weak and need extra accommodations, and that can hurt them in the eyes of men in the force. So we have this struggle of wanting to include more women, but we have to figure out how to do it without favoritism.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  The point is that the armed forces don't need the PT requirements, and they are mostly a way of selecting recruits. There are good reasons for increasing diversity, and if that means women, with their naturally lower muscle mass get a lower PT requirement, that is not really favouritism.

robertfw 11y ago

It's easy to say that we're all one group if you're in the dominant group...

yummyfajitas 11y ago
You presuppose that gender/racial/identity politics groupings are the natural one. They aren't. I do find this easy to say, in spite of the fact that my company has exactly 1 other person of my race (out of 100+) [1]. Though I am in the other "dominant group" (engineering)... [1] This has been the case for most of my career, and my life was not significantly different in the few cases when it wasn't true.
tomp 11y ago
I hope you're not serious. I'm a geek, mind and body. Most of my life (school, high school, sports, socializing, university) I was part of the marginalized, made fun of, or outright abused groups. Incidentally, many women had it a lot better that I (they were popular, attractive, outgoing, talkative, ...). Just because some of us (programmers) managed to unexpectedly strike gold (in this economy) doesn't make us "dominant" in most areas of life.
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  It's not about "dominance in most areas of life" but rather in a team of developers or communities of developers. Programming is still lucrative enough for most people that they chose this over the job they were originally trained for. That is one of the reasons (and not the only one) women want to be part of such groups, and there they are the minority. Also my perception is not that development teams are necessarily "dominated" by nerds. It's a cliche which is often wrong.

pron 11y ago

In spite of what some may think, these groupings are not based on some essence but on observation and the goals of those of us who seek to change the situation. We don't try to make everything equal, but first and foremost see if there are any obvious power differences in society at large. Since women form a group with a power share that is clearly and significantly lower than that of men, it is useful to treat women as a group for the purpose of enacting change. Again, the goal is not to make everyone the same, but to make sure there aren't any social groups that are somehow marginalized away from society's seats of power, and software happens to be one such seats of power. The categorization into geeks and non-geeks, while perhaps useful for identifying social cliques, is not at all useful for correcting society's power imbalances.

tomp 11y ago
You see what you want to see. I see plenty of very powerful women (Merkel, Lagarde, Hillary) and countless powerless men. Hint: what the powerful have in common is not sex, but money. If you really wanted to make a better society, you would focus on eradicating that discrimination and gap. But then, that probably won't win you any friends or popularity contests, so I guess I understand why you focus on the low-hanging fruit.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - tomp 11y ago
    > I see what research has found. Care to cite it? What about the "Women are wonderful" effect [1]? I'm not suggesting that women are uniformly privileged compared to men. But neither will I accept that they are uniformly underprivileged. Sexes are treated differently, sure, but IMO to speak about one sex being privileged over the other is to speak from ignorance or agenda. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E...

cnvogel 11y ago

> What's the point of equality then if we're still so different? Because we should be able to happily enjoy our differences in one area (gender), and still not be judged in our ability to perform something completely unrelated (programming). Obviously a social programme centered on cupcake tasting and yoga is catering to who one might consider stereotypical girls. But there are (I guess, I'm a white male in an engineering job after all) many ladies who don't want to disguise as androgynous (un-gendered?) trying to fit in, just to be able to have the job they want... And, frankly spoken, I for one welcome a more gender balanced office. Because we are diverse and should enjoy interaction with each other. Work related (as equal peers) or not (as different gendeds).

bayesianhorse 11y ago

The point is that there is evident discrimination, even if we (as men) don't perceive it as such. Many of it is subconscious.