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

#311

Post by mpweiher » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:03 PM UTC

iamdave wrote: post #265

smokeyj wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly sure the point you're making, but I really enjoy Paul Grahams essay on the topic of identity. http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html > Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.

>Not exactly sure the point you're making Some women choose to openly identify as (for example) feminist and embrace all of the connotations and reactions that come with that. Some women choose to identify as feminist more privately and live their life being fair with others and only discussing their group association among certain circles they feel allow them to do so free from worry of being ostracized or criticize…

> just because I am a member of the black community

> doesn't automatically mean I desire to constantly

> be the spokesperson for position n that impacts

> the black community.

Sure. But again, everyone has something like that. I am German. When I lived in the US, do you know how many times I had to give my opinion on Hitler? Or dissuade people from the notion that because I am German I must obviously be a fan? When discussing things with British people, you know how many times they dig up "2 wars"?

As a man, I have to put up with the fact that women who know nothing whatsoever about me will see me as a danger, even though in fact they are almost certainly more of a danger to me than I am to them.

That's life.

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

#312

Post by mpweiher » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:21 PM UTC

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #221

zo1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was great and necessary when women really were disadvantaged. But now that they are generally "equal", it's detrimental to them. I.e. It's entirely plausible that society is self-correcting against the unfairly-claimed bias by...being biased. One can "factually" be certain that men are not "favoured", therefore they can treat men exactly as they see it.…

I dunno. I work for a pretty liberal company, that definitely tries to avoid -isms and what not. I've also seen the same ideas from men vs women given far more credibility when presented by a male speaker. I find it somewhat disturbing. That allied with a lot of the scientific evidence of bias (look at the IAT studies, all 12mn of them) leads me to believe that this is still a problem.

I have also seen the same ideas from some men given far more credibility when presented by other men. In fact, it happens all the time. I have seen men ignored even when presenting solid evidence, because a higher-up had made up their mind. This happens. All. The. Time.

I find the IAT somewhat ridiculous. For example, it asked whether I associate black with "sports". Well, I do, but there is nothing "implicit" or "biased" about it. It is my lived experience as a high-school sprinter.

In addition, stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. It's not "wrong". What would be wrong is not adjusting for the individual once you get to know them, but AFAIK that same research also shows that most people drop the stereotypes quickly once they actually get to know an individual.

And yes, there are people who don't. In other news, stupid people exist and earth still round.

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

#313

Post by grossvogel » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

thonos wrote: post #108

I went to a recent tech conference and a few things came back when I read this article. In particular that the conf had a lot more female talkers than male ones (It was curated and invitation based). Most talks were good but a handful were nuggets where clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman and not her expertise in the area. Your typical dose of women who code talks were…

> clearly the deciding factor why that person got the talk was because she was a woman

Wow, what a coincidence! Every time I'm disappointed by a talk at a conference, I just know intuitively exactly why that person was chosen to present. Until now, I thought I was the only person with that super power.

I'm sorry for being obnoxious, but it's worth thinking about why it's so easy to reach this kind of conclusion. Maybe it's a bias that's so pervasive in our culture that we don't even realize it's there.

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

#314

Post by peeb » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:35 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #124

AngrySkillzz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a member of a disadvantaged group, you often do not have the ability to identify as a professional first and a group member second. That is the effect of being disadvantaged. Other people will make your life seem primarily about being a group member. Think about dealing with sexist/sexually-charged comments, racial tension at the office. Even if you want to just be a professional, other people will get in…

Argue for your limitations, and surely they're yours. To the extent that you can focus on what is under your personal control, you are likely to be happier and more productive. To the extent that you focus on things that are not under your control and can't be changed, you will be unhappy, unproductive, and will have a built-in excuse for your failures. This is not an either-or choice, it is a spectrum. And the farth…

While I understand where you come from, this is the kind of advice I would give a friend or family if they came to me and said “hey, I am having a hard time in the industry and I think it’s because I am a minority”. Do your best, try to grow a thick skin, etc.

However, I believe you can’t possibly extend that (positive and helpful) feeling to an outside “political” statement. If our aim is to make the industry welcoming and accepting to everyone, I believe we should do more than what you describe and try to figure out a way to make it right.

It might not help minorities in tech right now, but it will eventually.

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

#315

Post by kbenson » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:50 PM UTC

Wintamute wrote: post #308

kbenson wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> perfectly capable of moving into and dominating a technical field when that chimes with some aspect of female nature. It doesn't have to be female nature. It could just as easily be culturally encouraged nature, or a combination of the two (a culturally encouraged aspect that was originally developed from human nature, in a self reinforcing loop). > The male predilection towards abstract and systematic thinking cou…

Care to expand on what you think that horrendous reasoning could be?

For example:

Since all people aren't created equal, we shouldn't strive for equality, since some people are clearly better than others, so let's embrace that.

Since we aren't all physically or mentally equal, and some people are clearly "better" with respect to some aspect X that we/I/some group I'm part of has classified as important, those people are more worthy than others.

Etc.

There are arguments that can be logically made for a society based on those, but not if you want a society like we enjoy and promote in western civilization (not no imply a specific difference in other cultures, I'm just not qualified to comment on them). I think the world is a better place in many, many ways because we've promoted values of inclusion, equality, happiness and life. I'm happy to discuss alternate societies with different values and how what that might be like as a thought experiment (some of the best science fiction is in thus vein), but I'm not really interested in that when discussing problems our society currently faces. We should be able to agree on those core values I mentioned earlier, and taking time in each discussion to reassert and prove that those are important to everyone involved just detracts from useful conversation.

In other words, it's entirely possible that in some instances negative steroetyping based on race, sex, nationality or any number of other attributes is actually somewhat accurate, but we've decided as culture that the downsides are fairly bad, so for the most part we shouldn't do that. I agree with this.

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

#316

Post by james-watson » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 10:56 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #305

james-watson wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely. I am completely flabbergasted by the parent comment. How can someone allow a rapist to walk free? What job is worth keeping that interferes with justice being done? Which VC can survive a lawsuit resulting from firing an employee who was raped by her direct supervisor???? These questions must be answered if the parent's story is to be believed. If the story is true, it would be international headline news…

People did not believe her . That's why she was fired. It was a he-said, she-said situation. Plenty of people didn't even believe Cosby's accusers until it was revealed that he himself had admitted to drugging and raping women. Even if people do believe you, you're heaped with shame. Who wants to make an "international headline" out of something so painful and personal?

It's not "people's" opinion that matters. It's the police and court's. Victims of sexual assault have their identities protected throughout the entire legal process.

Did she, or did she not, report these multiple rapes to the police?

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

#317

Post by james-watson » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

selllikesybok wrote: post #300

james-watson wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Rape is a felony. She was "afraid of getting fired"? Pretty sure she could sue the VC and retire off their millions if they fired her for opening a rape case. By the way, you don't report rape to HR. You report it to the police, immediately after it has happened. And you go to the hospital and get a rape kit done. Rape isn't some microagression accusation you can just throw around when something uncomfortable ha…

This chain of logic is particularly pernicious. Given the absence of more data, it's equally likely that the events reported were true, and went unreported for the reasons stated. There was some guy, recently, who wasn't even a Boss, or particularly powerful or influential in his own right, who beat and assaulted a woman, and experienced relatively minimal consequences for doing so? Oh, yeah, this guy - https://en.wi…

Your definition of "logic" is quite interesting.

In your example, the accused was found guilty and sentenced. The victim was not fired from her job, nor her identity revealed. Also, the accused was not found guilty of rape nor battery, as you allude to. Read your own link:

"Turner was a student athlete at Stanford University on January 18, 2015, when he sexually penetrated an intoxicated and unconscious 22-year-old[1][2][3] woman (later called "Emily Doe"[4]) with his fingers. [...]

He was arraigned on February 2, 2015, pleading not guilty on all five charges.[13] On October 7, 2015, after reviewing the results of DNA tests, the two rape charges were dropped by prosecutors.[7][12][14][15] The trial began on March 14, 2016,[16] and concluded on March 30, 2016, with Turner's conviction on the three remaining charges of felony sexual assault.[17][18] The convictions carried a potential sentence of 14 years in prison. Prosecutors recommended six years in prison while probation officials recommended a "moderate" county jail sentence.[19] On June 2, 2016, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months confinement in the Santa Clara County jail to be followed by three years of probation. He must also register as a sex offender for the rest of his life[20] and participate in a sex offender rehabilitation program.[18]"

It seems there are some members of HN who really want to return to the days of witch burnings and mob rule, where an accusation of guilt is immediately acted upon and the accused is executed for the alleged crimes.

Interesting times indeed...

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

#318

Post by jsprogrammer » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 11:14 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #118

jsprogrammer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yes, they do. Tall people make more money and are more successful in the workplace [1]. Wearing higher-class clothing elicits more responsiveness and lowers the perceived social status of others [2]. And of course, leadership is associated with being white and male, which leads to better responsiveness in work-type environments to white males [3]. I also seem to recall a talk by a professor at Berkeley showing that h…

None of that seems to make a case for "automatic respect".

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

#319

Post by onetwotree » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 11:17 PM UTC

mundo wrote: post #301

onetwotree wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The field of technology is undergoing exactly the same growing pains that law and medicine did some time ago. I think in the next decade or two I think we will see women achieving the same kind of representation in tech that they have in law and medicine. And as this process takes place, haters will hate, pretend there isn't a problem, and spew various kinds of sexist nonsense, just like they did when women were ente…

> Keep whining though. Maybe you'll be able to prevent the spread of the dreaded females into yet another bastion of male dominance. I didn't say there was no problem; I said you were wrong about its cause. From that you conclude that I'm a sexist who is actively trying to keep women out of tech? Jesus man, I know this is a contentious issue, but get a hold on yourself. I've hired and promoted female software enginee…

Nah you're right. I posted in anger, then edited it. Seems like I need to get a sleep(3) in there somewhere.

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

#320

Post by slededit » Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #241

FungalRaincloud wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see the studies you're referencing. However, taking what you're saying as truth (a thing I am reluctant to do), I still find it a big leap to claim that the reason that there are fewer women in tech is that fewer women are interested in tech, and I would still be inclined to believe that women in tech are at a disadvantage. Proving lack of interest seems difficult, at best - for instance, is it that w…

Except women frequently are a majority, not a minority. In the US, 60% of college students now are female. They just don't go into technical professions. From what I've gathered from being around different women and talking to them, I think all this talk about being "disadvantaged" is missing the real root causes. They actually are disadvantaged, but the problem isn't the workforce, fellow college students, etc., nea…

> If you really want to fix the problem with women in tech, you need to take all female children away from their parents and raise them in state-run facilities where they're taught that they actually can do math and play with toys that aren't dolls and pursue careers in these fields. Somehow, I doubt this suggestion will be seriously considered....

Been tried throughout history. It almost never works and is as horrific as it sounds humanitarian wise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_sc...