Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm not a Woman in Tech

communequation.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 621 posts

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#131

Post by projectramo »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #40
projectramo wrote: post #16

Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels. The reason that has come into style is because people have implicit associations and biases. And the theory is the best way to deal with them is to explicitly think about it. Example. You're hiring for a position. It is very technical. You see a bunch of candidates and then you just think some would…

>Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name. Wasn't there a recent study that removing names led to the percentage of men being interviewed increasing?

There have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview.

If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#132

Post by projectramo »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #40
projectramo wrote: post #16

Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels. The reason that has come into style is because people have implicit associations and biases. And the theory is the best way to deal with them is to explicitly think about it. Example. You're hiring for a position. It is very technical. You see a bunch of candidates and then you just think some would…

>Now you reread the resume only focusing on the actual skills and you find that some of the people you rejected have stronger technical skills but you unconsciously downplayed it because of the female name. Wasn't there a recent study that removing names led to the percentage of men being interviewed increasing?

There have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview.

If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#134

Post by projectramo »

splintercell wrote: post #56
projectramo wrote: post #16

Okay, so here is the thing: nobody wants to make the labels explicit, or to think about the minority or female labels. The reason that has come into style is because people have implicit associations and biases. And the theory is the best way to deal with them is to explicitly think about it. Example. You're hiring for a position. It is very technical. You see a bunch of candidates and then you just think some would…

> It would be better to read the resume without the gender clues. (Names removed, sorority and fraternity info removed, women organization removed etc) But without that I think we make it explicit just so we have a shot at examining the things we don't make explicit. > That is the theory, anyway. Recent studies[1] contradict your theory. 1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

It isn't "my" theory.

And secondly, as your article points out, there are other studies that suggest otherwise.

There have been several studies where placing an identical resume with a male or female name will give you different calls for an interview.

If we don't make the resumes identical, I wonder if it is something about the way they present the resumes. (Other clues and so forth).

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#135

Post by ktRolster »

adventured wrote: post #96

edit Why did my comment get dislodged from being underneath another comment that I was replying to? It's now showing as a stand-alone comment under the thread. ------------------------------------------- I'm doing a similar thing. I stopped posting anything personal on Facebook about a year ago and I never post to Twitter. I'll never go back to posting personal thoughts on social media, not under any circumstances. I…

It would be helpful for you to phrase your opinions in ways that are not so inflammatory.

For example, instead of saying, "feminism is not about equality" you can say, "some feminists don't want equality." Which will also be more accurate, since there are feminists who do want equality.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#136

Post by Latty »

CM30 wrote: post #25
aphextron wrote: post #2

>I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. Thank you. I find myself feeling the exact same way as a black man in this industry, and cringe at "minority only" events and clubs. We don't need token inclusion and separate praise for being "brave" and "fighting against the odds". We need a world where those things are irrelevant.

Yeah, agreed. I still remember seeing a bunch of college students pushing for 'segregation' at university because it would 'help minorities' and thinking "Wasn't that exactly what we got rid of because it was horribly racist 50 years or so ago?" It feels like all these 'minority only' events and clubs and what not are going straight back to the bad old days. Just from the opposite 'side' of the political spectrum.

Then you don't understand the core problem.

You know what, I think people, in general, should be allowed to discriminate. The whole "right to refuse service" shtick - people shouldn't be forced to do things they don't want to do, even if they are following stupid beliefs.

That said, I recognise there are things that have to beat that. Just like free speech doesn't include shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, we have to curtail people's right to discriminate where other people's lives are made unlivable because of it.

If someone refuses me, the white straight male, the chance to buy something, I go somewhere else. That's not the case for some minorities however. If everyone won't provide wedding services for you, or everyone won't let you attend a class, or everyone won't sell you food, you can't live your life. Commonly discriminated minorities have to be protected because they have a right to do what they want as well. Just as you are free to do what you want, but that doesn't include murdering people. You are free to refuse service, but not based on things that mean that person can't get service anywhere.

It's not perfect, but it's a solution.

Now, of course, that doesn't address another salient question - even if it's legal, why would minorities want restricted events?

Well, culture. Obviously in an ideal world events would be open to all and it'd all just work. The reality is, however, that culture can be a barrier. Let's take chess as an example.

Chess was male-dominated in part due to lack of education for women and it being seen as a male game. Obviously tournaments today are not restricted to men, but we still see less women.

That is, at least in part, because women never get exposed to chess because there is still cultural pressure that it's a "men's game". Women are excluded when they are young and never get a start. The intent of girl's only clubs and tournaments is to encourage women to get into chess, then they integrate into the larger chess scene. As time goes on, the societal stigma lessens and hopefully we end up in that ideal situation.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#137

Post by [deleted] »

serg_chernata wrote: post #4
aphextron wrote: post #2

>I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. Thank you. I find myself feeling the exact same way as a black man in this industry, and cringe at "minority only" events and clubs. We don't need token inclusion and separate praise for being "brave" and "fighting against the odds". We need a world where those things are irrelevant.

Watching from the sidelines as a white male, I have to say that I find these kinds of situations so confusing. Some people want these differences to be highlighted, while others like yourself want the complete opposite. I'm left believing that my only choice is to have no opinion. Though I lean towards your stance across the board.

[deleted]

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#138

Post by adventured »

mercurysmessage wrote: post #125
adventured wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that feminism is promoting equality. I think I'm approaching it exactly right. Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. If this were a personal discussion on Facebook or Twitter, the left's censorship/control attack wave would be rolling in right now, calling me countless labels (instead, here you'll just get downvotes, your life won't be ruined and…

Because you don't want to hear others opinions.

No, it's because I'll get attacked for not agreeing with x y z position.

It's no longer acceptable to have discussions about such topics. It's no longer acceptable to just not stand in the way of such topics (I'm not against people being feminists for example, I don't care) - you must agree, or you're regarded as being against.

Unless you specifically agree with illegal immigration and feminism, then you are against them. That is the present approach taken by the left in the US (the right does it with various topics as well, such as gun control). We now live in an us-vs-them society, you have to choose a side or else.

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#139

Post by mrtron »

aphextron wrote: post #2

>I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. Thank you. I find myself feeling the exact same way as a black man in this industry, and cringe at "minority only" events and clubs. We don't need token inclusion and separate praise for being "brave" and "fighting against the odds". We need a world where those things are irrelevant.

My wife and I have discussed this multiple times before, and feel the exact same way. All she wants is regular inclusion!

I think it is clear her gender has worked against her several times in the past. When she was running her startup, some suppliers would tell her to put them in touch with a decision maker, despite her clearly being one of two founders/execs.

The counter argument I have heard was: "this doesn't help create change in the industry".

Re: I'm not a Woman in Tech

#140

Post by owebmaster »

aphextron wrote: post #2

>I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. Thank you. I find myself feeling the exact same way as a black man in this industry, and cringe at "minority only" events and clubs. We don't need token inclusion and separate praise for being "brave" and "fighting against the odds". We need a world where those things are irrelevant.

We (the ones that are already here) don't need. The ones out, they need to get in. The way the tech club are pretending they are trying to invite more women and black men to tech doesn't work, because it is done mostly by white men. We should be the ones helping more to come.
Post reply on HN