The power of role models • Hacker News Board

Re: The power of role models

#241

Post by kstenson » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:17 PM UTC

zigzigzag wrote: post #156

kstenson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not giving people an advantage, it about giving people equal opportunities to succeed.

That's the exact opposite of what Pike is saying.

I was speaking more about the use of the term advantage by OP. When these types of discussions arise people often talk about how it's unfair about giving someone an advantage over others.

The problem is it doesn't go any deeper than the surface, about the underlying advantage that some parts of society have that others don't. It simplifies the discussion into an almost child like argument about who gets the sweets and assumes that it's a zero sum game.

I am a strong believer in meritocracy, but I also am aware of the actually reality of society means that it doesn't perfectly exist. I feel that if people feel strongly about meritocracy they should be open to increasing the funnel of people that can participate.

As other have said this problem doesn't seem to be self correcting in the tech industry, and if promoting someone just because they are female is something people try I don't really have a problem with it. I have seen many people in my career in this industry promoted for worse reasons.

Re: The power of role models

#242

Post by tptacek » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:20 PM UTC

discombobulate wrote: post #240

tptacek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article we're talking about opens with an observation about better gender parity in another hard science field, so it's hard to see how computer science can somehow exempt itself from the observation without special pleading.

No. Your parent comment was talking about engineering .

So engineering is different both from science and from actuaries (a math-intensive field with much better gender parity than computer technology), and from all the other lucrative professions.

The pleading here seems to me to get more and more special with each iteration of the argument.

Re: The power of role models

#243

Post by Oxitendwe » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:24 PM UTC

DelaneyM wrote: post #237

To those expressing concern that this proposal represents "reverse sexism" or is anti-meritocratic: Merit is equal parts nature and nurture. "Pushing women into positions of influence" can also be interpreted as identifying high-performers capable of filling senior roles and then helping them get there. This does mean giving them an unfair advantage, but only in the sense that life is unfair in general. Ultimately th…

>To those expressing concern that this proposal represents "reverse sexism" or is anti-meritocratic:

Nobody is arguing that this is "reverse sexism", merely sexism. If you don't think disadvantaging men in particular is sexism, then I don't think it's possible for us to have meaningful discourse on this if we can't even agree on what words mean.

>"Pushing women into positions of influence" can also be interpreted as identifying high-performers capable of filling senior roles and then helping them get there.

He specifically used the phrasing "It may take proactive behavior, like choosing a women over a man when growing your team". That is not consistent with your interpretation - yours is that he is advocating for identifying people who are fit for management roles, who happen to be women, and then using their resources to make it easier for them to get there. Instead, his phrasing quite unambiguously advocates selecting women over men when hiring. I would love to hear your argument for why this is both not sexist and also valuable to society at large.

>This does mean giving them an unfair advantage, but only in the sense that life is unfair in general. Ultimately they are the most capable individuals for the roles they assume, and lifting them to that level pays dividends for our entire industry.

So, unfairly discriminating against people makes them "the most capable individuals for the roles they assume"?

>If you believe in both bolstering the meritocracy and furthering gender equality (as I do), this should be your reaction. Positioning a meritocratic ideal as in opposition to equal representation is just veiled misogyny.

As I have said in innumerable other comments, that equal representation is even desirable, much less possible, rests on the assumption that all demographics have equal interest and potential. This has not been proven, and to advocate intentionally disadvantaging people based on their sex when you don't even know if the group to whose benefit this is all for even wants to be here I find naive at best and bigoted at worst.

Re: The power of role models

#244

Post by skookumchuck » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #231

skookumchuck wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk to any stock broker. You'll find there are plenty of women with substantial investment portfolios. I don't see how it is the fault of men if those women choose not to fund women startups.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with "I don't see how it is the fault of men if those women choose not to fund women startups." I can follow a chain of logic that goes something like: - there's a lack of gender diversity in tech, in that there are disproportionately fewer women. - this is a problem we should solve - given that there's more men in tech, they're somehow to blame Is this an accurate re…

I see men being blamed, whether they are intentional or not. I also see men being put forward as being responsible for a solution. I.e. that women cannot succeed without the aid, approval, and encouragement of men.

I view this as an unfortunate sexist and patronizing attitude, and is ultimately a destructive one.

Women do not need the aid, approval, or encouragement from men to succeed in tech. This applies to everyone else, too. There's never been a time of more opportunity for everyone in the US.

If people need excuses for failure, there's an endless list of them. There is no fixing that (like how my coming up with a few thousand to start a business was dismissed.) Successful people don't look for excuses and don't make excuses. They go out and get things done.

Re: The power of role models

#245

Post by grzm » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:37 PM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #244

grzm wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from with "I don't see how it is the fault of men if those women choose not to fund women startups." I can follow a chain of logic that goes something like: - there's a lack of gender diversity in tech, in that there are disproportionately fewer women. - this is a problem we should solve - given that there's more men in tech, they're somehow to blame Is this an accurate re…

I see men being blamed, whether they are intentional or not. I also see men being put forward as being responsible for a solution. I.e. that women cannot succeed without the aid, approval, and encouragement of men. I view this as an unfortunate sexist and patronizing attitude, and is ultimately a destructive one. Women do not need the aid, approval, or encouragement from men to succeed in tech. This applies to everyo…

Thanks for taking the time to respond. In this thread, can you provide examples of men being blamed or being held solely responsible for a solution? What percentage of the comments do so?

Re: The power of role models

#246

Post by discombobulate » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #242

discombobulate wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Your parent comment was talking about engineering .

So engineering is different both from science and from actuaries (a math-intensive field with much better gender parity than computer technology), and from all the other lucrative professions. The pleading here seems to me to get more and more special with each iteration of the argument.

They're not the same. So, yes, they're different.

> The pleading here seems to me to get more and more special with each iteration of the argument.

Really? Because you ignored what the parent comment said. I.e. special pleading!

Re: The power of role models

#247

Post by ygaf » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 10:44 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #230

ygaf wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No part of this engages with my comment. He was contriving to engage with it; you should be less brief/concise with your talk about priors and premises in this thread.

If you understood it as responsive to my comment, can you explain to me how it was? I'd like to understand it better.

Well, in the absence of your followup post, your second line about priors could just be interpreted as 'redefine merit to include being female'. Of course that isn't what you meant about changing priors, and I'll be honest, I've been drinking but be more user-friendly :)

Re: The power of role models

#248

Post by current_call » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 11:05 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #71

Oxitendwe wrote: post #24

>The best way to improve the representation of women in the field is not to recruit them, important though that is, but to promote them. To create role models. To push them into positions of influence. I find the idea that we should "push them into positions of influence" abhorrent. These are zero sum games, to give them a special advantage over any other demographic is to disadvantage another. This is antithetical t…

If you disagree with Pike's implied priors, do so directly; don't huff about how logic that starts from a different set of premises to yours ends at a bad place when you swap the premises out from under it. One very simple, coherent way to arrive at Pike's position without sacrificing the notion of merit is to accept the idea that it's very unlikely that computer technology is unique among the professions in being su…

One very simple, coherent way to arrive at Pike's position without sacrificing the notion of merit is to accept the idea...

By accept, you mean assume, and assuming is what Oxitendwe was warning against.

Re: The power of role models

#249

Post by skookumchuck » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 11:08 PM UTC

kstenson wrote: post #235

kstenson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would reflect on the fact that computing isn't just a market based economy. That is just on facet and even then you're assuming that entry to the market is equal.

barriers to starting a company are not based on getting permission, as you rightly say there are other factors such as social economic. The fact that you were able to start your own company and succeed is a mixture of your upbringing, your standing in society as much as your intelligence and access to capital. It's a common fallacy to think that just working harder or having the grit to strike out is the only factor.…

Lists of excuses are easy to come by. I hear a long list of excuses from people who grew up in pretty much the exact same circumstances I did.

Re: The power of role models

#250

Post by urahara » Sat, Feb 25, 2017, 11:14 PM UTC

tbirdz wrote: post #107

skywhopper wrote: post #12

Programming used to be a field with significant numbers of women, including true pioneers like Grace Hopper. IIRC, female computer science majors peaked in the 80s, and have been declining since. Even with those low numbers these days, a lot of women who are interested in programming and computer science are chased away early on, or they quickly move into more welcoming fields. So it's true that among senior staff, w…

>Rob is right that role models are important. I've heard this thought expressed a lot, but I have to ask a genuine question: Does anyone here really have any role models that were influential to their interest in the field? I'm a man, so maybe it is different for women. But I never really had any role models in programming that I looked up to/wanted to emulate. Personally, I was always interested in computers, softwa…

Probably more importantly, you didn't have negative models, so pure interest was enough to start. Models are very important when you're thinking of doing something that is unusual, risky, rare, seems dangerous or unfeasible. Sure, if you're about doing something common and socially acceptable, there is no urgent need to have a model. But when you want to do something quite extreme, you need to estimate chances to succeed, resources required, time, possibility and other params. This is where role models come in. You have to somehow validate that what you want to achieve is possible (but prior to this, you have to learn that it even exists).