Girls Who Code • Hacker News Board

Re: Girls Who Code

#371

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:06 PM UTC

codahale wrote: post #366

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike most folks, I know who you are (I am not far removed from your social circle from prior employment) and you'll have to try that on someone else. I would encourage you to formulate a substantive point, for once, and seek a rational discussion on this with me but I know from experience that's not Coda Hale Style. Last year I donated more than your annual contribution to Shanley's Gittip on causes for hunger and…

I'm happy to hear you're donating to charity, but you're missing out on a great opportunity to reduce your taxable income and save for retirement. The 2013 contribution limit is $17,500, and most financial planners would be aghast at a well-paid professional like yourself not taking such an easy step to lower your tax liability. The good news is that if you max out your contribution either today or tomorrow, you'll s…

[deleted]

Re: Girls Who Code

#372

Post by mhaymo » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:10 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #337

theorique wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some possibilities: - The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation. - Men (white o…

Speaking only to your first point, I don’t think the implication is that the white man holds a job that a better qualified non-white-man should have gotten, I think the implication is often times that the white man should not have gotten the job because it would have been preferable to hire an equally qualified non-white-man solely on the basis of his or her non-white-mannedness. This often makes people defensive (I…

Postulating "bias" in the hiring process does seem to imply that a non-deserving or less-qualified candidate was hired. Saying that being a non-white-male is itself a merit doesn't change that, and is also highly contentious.

Re: Girls Who Code

#373

Post by theorique » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 10:51 PM UTC

rada wrote: post #359

theorique wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some possibilities: - The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation. - Men (white o…

The implication, stated or not (usually not)... You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate k…

Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men".

As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry.

Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.

Re: Girls Who Code

#374

Post by glesica » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 11:03 PM UTC

theorique wrote: post #324

glesica wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then why don't startups hire based on the results of IQ tests, isn't this a meritocracy? You actually made my overall point stronger, because you demonstrated that this community clearly doesn't define "merit" to be "raw intelligence". It is a much, much more nuanced concept and it includes, I suspect, a large number of characteristics that are heavily influenced by gender, culture, and class. When we say "merit"…

In companies I worked for in the past, I definitely had to do IQ-ish tests such as puzzles and brain teasers. Many people in the tech industry have encountered this. The cultural mythology of Google (and earlier, Microsoft, when they were the ascendant, 800-lb gorilla) was about their puzzle based interviews, and how they didn't care about your specific skill set but only raw intelligence . (We can debate about wheth…

The problem is that those tests probably DO have cultural or gender biases. GP was pretty specific about the fact that only SOME intelligence tests have been shown to be effective and free of cultural and gender bias. So then we're back to my original comment.

Re: Girls Who Code

#375

Post by Sssnake » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 11:08 PM UTC

ceol wrote: post #353

Sssnake wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What a disgustingly ignorant thing to say Was that intended as a warning for the rest of your post? >It's ridiculous to expect someone to put up with harassment and vitriol Of course it is. And since that does not happen any more frequently in tech than anywhere else, and does not happen any more frequently to women than to men, I have a hard time seeing the relevance. >You may not even realize it, but your comment…

> and does not happen any more frequently to women than to men You might as well be stating the world isn't round, or the sky isn't blue, or any other plainly obvious fact that has been proven countless times. Of course, you'll say sexism in the industry really doesn't exist, and ignore the thousands of women detailing their experiences[1] on the subject, so this isn't really for you. This is for the random reader wh…

>Of course, you'll say sexism in the industry really doesn't exist

No, I say it is rare, no more common than in any other industry, and goes in both directions. But debating what I say rather than a strawman is too much effort right?

>you've been ignoring some of the most[2] recent[3] incidents.[4]

None of those are examples of misogyny. If you do not understand the meaning of the word, you can use a dictionary to find out.

>It just makes you look like a jackass, and you wouldn't want that, right?

I don't mind if a histrionic sjw with a victim complex thinks I am a jackass.

Re: Girls Who Code

#376

Post by rokhayakebe » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:20 AM UTC

ceol wrote: post #356

rokhayakebe wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ceol. I am Black. I am African. I live in Orange County (3% Black - At best). I am 32. I started to learn how to code at 28. I am still not comfortable walking in a room where everybody is White. I feel like a fraud sometimes, when I tell people I know how to code (in PHP). None of the above stopped me from slinging that code for several hours today. I understand what being a minority is, but quite frankly most of th…

Being black is certainly not the same as being a woman, and just because you didn't experience enough discrimination to push you away doesn't mean others don't. If anything, that feeling of being uncomfortable should make you more sympathetic, but instead, you're stuck in this bootstraps mentality that anyone who couldn't follow through just didn't apply themselves enough or something. > Somebody having an advantage…

You know, Ceol, maybe you are right.

Re: Girls Who Code

#377

Post by glesica » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:22 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #292

glesica wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A meritocracy based on raw intelligence and skill (measured by standardized testing) is not exactly what people mean today when they discuss "promoting diversity". Well sure, but largely because the standardized tests are all biased against women and/or minorities. [1] Aside from that, what exactly is a "meritocracy"? What does that mean? You have to define it pretty carefully. HN is full of posts about making soci…

The few links provided by your google search do not back up your claim of bias - they repeat the same vague assertion as you but provide no evidence. If you have evidence of this claim please be more specific about presenting it. I also didn't claim any startups use IQ tests. The point I was making is that what lkrubner described as "very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place" (namely, assessing…

If "objective" and "merit" are defined as "upper-middle class white men" then don't talk about IQ tests, just say what you mean.

My point is that you can couch what goes on in whatever language you like, but if you don't care about social justice, then just say so and stop pretending that what you are doing is actually the "real" social justice or is somehow "natural" (for some weird, pseudo-genetic definition of "natural").

This is the same complaint I have about a lot of "capitalists". They like to talk about how the market will yield these socially optimal outcomes, but to listen to them tell the story, the market ALWAYS yields whatever is PC at the time. The truth is that the market is devoid of morality or values, and maybe that's fine, but don't lie about it. If the system you support has property X, but not property Y, don't pretend it has property Y just because property Y is easier to advocate for, be proud and stand up for your belief in property X!

Hiring is biased toward white men for a variety of reasons. If you are OK with that, then fine, say so. You didn't cause the historical problems women and minorities have had, so there's a reasonable argument to be made that you shouldn't have to pay for them. I, personally, would rather make less money but help equalize historical inequities, but that's just me. I also buy single-fly toilet paper because I think it is less wasteful, but I don't go around yelling at people who buy two-ply, that's their business. But don't pretend that by some weird contortion of logic and the rules of the universe hiring white men is "right". It's just more profitable because of the historical oppression of people who weren't white men. So say so. End of story.

Re: Girls Who Code

#378

Post by johnbm » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:22 AM UTC

codahale wrote: post #366

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike most folks, I know who you are (I am not far removed from your social circle from prior employment) and you'll have to try that on someone else. I would encourage you to formulate a substantive point, for once, and seek a rational discussion on this with me but I know from experience that's not Coda Hale Style. Last year I donated more than your annual contribution to Shanley's Gittip on causes for hunger and…

I'm happy to hear you're donating to charity, but you're missing out on a great opportunity to reduce your taxable income and save for retirement. The 2013 contribution limit is $17,500, and most financial planners would be aghast at a well-paid professional like yourself not taking such an easy step to lower your tax liability. The good news is that if you max out your contribution either today or tomorrow, you'll s…

This is what I believe you call derailing. Like the other person, I'm also still waiting for substantive points to be made rather than shaming and cherry picking.

Re: Girls Who Code

#379

Post by codahale » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 4:50 AM UTC

johnbm wrote: post #378

codahale wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to hear you're donating to charity, but you're missing out on a great opportunity to reduce your taxable income and save for retirement. The 2013 contribution limit is $17,500, and most financial planners would be aghast at a well-paid professional like yourself not taking such an easy step to lower your tax liability. The good news is that if you max out your contribution either today or tomorrow, you'll s…

This is what I believe you call derailing. Like the other person, I'm also still waiting for substantive points to be made rather than shaming and cherry picking.

I'm not here for debate club, Johnonymous. Like I said before, I'm here for the pearl-clutching.

Re: Girls Who Code

#380

Post by mistermann » Tue, Dec 31, 2013, 5:24 AM UTC

jmagoon wrote: post #362

mistermann wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think part of the reason these discussions never get anywhere is because of blatant dishonesty in discussions. You actually think there is no "feminist activist" movement?

I don't, and I never made that claim because it's insane. I object to the idea that "feminist activists" "didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor." There's a claim "women are more risk averse", and another claim "feminist activists exist", both of which are feasibly true, that do not lead to general conclusion that "feminist activists did not push to get more women…

I must be confused or misinterpreted you.

"And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?"

I took that to mean (generally) that the idea that there is such a thing as a legitimate feminist activist is nonsense - that in reality any reference to one is as part of a straw man argument. Not what you were saying?