Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#31

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #28

Personal story time...I was at a recent conference, listening to men, women given talks. One of the women, in her talk, uses an interaction with her daughter as the framing narrative for the talk (imagine Socrates and Glaucon, only this woman and her daughter). Almost immediately, three guys to my right start making fun of the speaker, sotto voce, making all manner of little jokes to themselves, that are becoming inc…

Wow I don't have anywhere near the empathy for those yokels mouthing off, that others seem to have. Real dipshits. No way they are innocently unthoughtful or unconsidered. They seem to have issues.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#32

Post by pselbert » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

Sandy Metz, of "Practical Object Oriented Design in Ruby" [1] fame made a comment about this on The Bikeshed[2] recently. She stated that she refuses to make reference to gender when she is giving her talks, though her gender is ultimately what got her the opportunity to write a book and talk in the first place.

Ultimately she is regarded as an amazing teacher and a dynamic speaker, not because she is a woman in tech.

[1] http://www.poodr.com/ [2] http://bikeshed.fm/70

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#33

Post by Tcepsa » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

sakaloda wrote: post #13

Diversity in tech will never work. You are going against reality if you think everyone has the same aptitude to be good at math/engineering. Look at the data below. SAT Math by race [1] : - Asian/Pacific Islander = 598 - White = 534 - Mexican American = 461 - Black = 429 SAT Math by gender [2] : - Men = 537 - Women = 503 [1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 [2] http://www.fairtest.org/sat-race-gender-…

Going by your extremely tenuous suggestion that genetics is an accurate predictor of math/engineering aptitude because of how people of certain ethnicities or sex perform on the SAT, we should have a distribution in tech that looks like this:

- Asian/Pacific Islander = 29.6%

- White = 26.4%

- Mexican American = 22.8%

- Black = 22.1%

- Men = 51.6%

- Women = 48.4%

In other words, roughly equal numbers of all of the demographics (specifically _not_ an overwhelming majority of White Men).

So even if your argument were valid it seriously undermines your point.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#34

Post by kaeluka » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

> would be seen as sexist.

"would be seen" talks about everyone, and I obviously can't speak for everyone. I'll try to anyway:

A men-only club would be judged differently since men are perceived to be the privileged class -- a concern would be that in this club, unfairly obtained advantages are carried on. A women-only club is much less of an issue, because women are perceived to be disadvantaged as-is. Having them organise in a secret circle won't cause any damage.

Beware: I'm not commenting on how sound this reasoning is, or defending or denying anyone's right to meet non-publicly.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#35

Post by not_anit_woman » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

cheez0r wrote: post #29

That sure sounds like what the tech industry always seems to prefer: walk the walk, not talk the talk; software, not slideware; etc. Be a strong tech woman and you don't have to advocate for them; your actions speak louder than words. Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

I think you may be missing the point of affirmative action to encourage more women/minorities in tech...

Just ask Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#36

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

sakaloda wrote: post #13

Diversity in tech will never work. You are going against reality if you think everyone has the same aptitude to be good at math/engineering. Look at the data below. SAT Math by race [1] : - Asian/Pacific Islander = 598 - White = 534 - Mexican American = 461 - Black = 429 SAT Math by gender [2] : - Men = 537 - Women = 503 [1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 [2] http://www.fairtest.org/sat-race-gender-…

[deleted]

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#37

Post by buckbova » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

Tcepsa wrote: post #33

sakaloda wrote: post #13

Diversity in tech will never work. You are going against reality if you think everyone has the same aptitude to be good at math/engineering. Look at the data below. SAT Math by race [1] : - Asian/Pacific Islander = 598 - White = 534 - Mexican American = 461 - Black = 429 SAT Math by gender [2] : - Men = 537 - Women = 503 [1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171 [2] http://www.fairtest.org/sat-race-gender-…

Going by your extremely tenuous suggestion that genetics is an accurate predictor of math/engineering aptitude because of how people of certain ethnicities or sex perform on the SAT, we should have a distribution in tech that looks like this: - Asian/Pacific Islander = 29.6% - White = 26.4% - Mexican American = 22.8% - Black = 22.1% - Men = 51.6% - Women = 48.4% In other words, roughly equal numbers of all of the dem…

And I bet this would be true, if women didn't gravitate moreso to the natural sciences.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#38

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

Digression: That's an old tired dead horse. When the minority organizes, somebody always calls 'double standard'. "They're racist/sexist too!"

Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Forgetting that the rest of the world is a de-facto mens/white/whatever club already. Lets just retreat to the ivory tower.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#39

Post by jsprogrammer » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #28

Personal story time...I was at a recent conference, listening to men, women given talks. One of the women, in her talk, uses an interaction with her daughter as the framing narrative for the talk (imagine Socrates and Glaucon, only this woman and her daughter). Almost immediately, three guys to my right start making fun of the speaker, sotto voce, making all manner of little jokes to themselves, that are becoming inc…

>Of course, I'm a tall well-built, well-dressed white guy, i.e. all the things that automatically command respect.

? None of those things automatically command respect.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#40

Post by jordigh » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

> It is no less sexist to form a women's only club, but nobody sees fit to criticize it.

It is not -ist if a disadvantaged group does something to counteract its disadvantage without considering the privileged group. If women are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to do something to fix their disadvantage without having to interject "but what about men!?"

So, for example, Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Women groups are not sexist and we don't need an Ubuntu/Debian/Arch Men group because... well, because that's just what normal Ubuntu/Debian/Arch is, mostly men.

The situation for men and women in tech is not symmetrical, so the approaches to handle the problems need not be symmetrical either.