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

Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

attendly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 120 posts

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#111

Post by toasterlovin »

shardling wrote: post #74
jscheel wrote: post #39

After a blow-up in my town a few months ago, I tried to encourage a few notable female tech proponents that negativity was not the way to win the fight. I was publicly lambasted, called denigrating names, had false information spread as far as cities 3000 miles away, and even had a meme made about me (containing incorrect info, imagine that). Negativity breeds nothing but negativity. I often fall into the trap myself…

Sorry, but I can't help but remember encountering people who told stories much like yours, only to find on closer examination that they were incredibly, deeply in the wrong. Since you don't go into any actual details about what set the situation off, it makes it really hard for me to take your anecdote too seriously.

If you're lacking details, why not ask questions?

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#112

Post by toasterlovin »

vacri wrote: post #92
adamnemecek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teaching and nursing are both fields where you need a degree to start participating. How is that relevant?

The pool of participants is much narrower in scope - people that have specifically spent years training to be that profession. Not people who started out doing it as a hobby or a quiet thing on the side.

I think the OP was asking how requiring a degree is relevant to the number of men in those professions. When compared to women, men generally have equal or better access to higher education, so it would seem that the dearth of men in nursing and teaching wouldn't be related to those professions requiring a degree.

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#113

Post by toasterlovin »

lutusp wrote: post #97
wfunction wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought being qualified was rather obvious, the fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean I thought we should ignore whether or not people are qualified.

> I thought being qualified was rather obvious ... People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech." Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitu…

Above, in response to me, you say:

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

Doesn't your use of the phrase "unfairly exclude" imply a narrowing of the scope down from "all people who want tech jobs" to "all qualified people who want tech jobs", since excluding unqualified people is fair? I don't understand why now you are arguing that you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption. This statement implies that you did.

Am I missing something?

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#114

Post by toasterlovin »

vitaminc wrote: post #3

Instead of supporting feminist policies that help privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men, why not push for underprivileged people to join the tech field?

What feminist policies are helping privileged women at the expense of underprivileged men?

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#115

Post by Kudzu_Bob »

toasterlovin wrote: post #63
scoofy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-academics have a fairly well documented penchant for discrimination and ethnic violence.

Is ignoring or hiding the truth (whatever the truth may be) ever a legitimate solution? Seems like treating the symptom instead of the cause,

That depends on the problem that is being solved. For instance, if your goal is to explain away what is obviously the case, then ignoring or hiding the truth is the ONLY solution. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#116

Post by lutusp »

toasterlovin wrote: post #109
lutusp wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> How would that be achieved without a law? > By changing people's attitudes. Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there. Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose…

Pretty sure the OP was assuming qualified people only... Also, you say: > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.

> Which, to me, implies that you were also ...

Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone.

My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#117

Post by lutusp »

toasterlovin wrote: post #113
lutusp wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought being qualified was rather obvious ... People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech." Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitu…

Above, in response to me, you say: > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would. Doesn't your use of the phrase "unfairly exclude" imply a narrowing of the scope down from "all people who want tech jobs" to "all qualified people who want tech jobs", since excluding unqualified people is fair? I don't unde…

> This statement implies that you did.

Why did I post? To emphasize that the OP is encouraging a no-standard standard. My reply adds the requirement that the people be qualified, as opposed to the idea that, as in the OP's original post, everyone who wants a tech position should get one.

My posts emphasize the opposite of what you claim.

> Am I missing something?

Yes, you are. Here is the original content:

"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech.

That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%."

No mention of the qualifications of the candidates, only their number, their gender, and their wish to be in tech. It's a competence-blind standard. So I objected. Now I hear that I should have used my psychic abilities to divine the OP's real meaning.

> you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption.

The OP's "implied assumption" is not my responsibility, but that of the originator.

Effective communication starts with ... wait for it ... saying what you mean, and leaving nothing to the imagination. If a reader can reply and say, "Wait ... did you actually mean ...", then something is wrong.

Here's the key phrase:

" ... equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech ..."

If the OP really meant to specify qualified people, she should have said " ... correct the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech by including people qualified to be in tech but unfairly excluded..." or other similar wording.

To assume rather than to specify is to make the classic error of assuming everyone has the same values and attitudes. If that were true, there would be no need to try to communicate ideas.

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#118

Post by shardling »

toasterlovin wrote: post #111
shardling wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I can't help but remember encountering people who told stories much like yours, only to find on closer examination that they were incredibly, deeply in the wrong. Since you don't go into any actual details about what set the situation off, it makes it really hard for me to take your anecdote too seriously.

If you're lacking details, why not ask questions?

I'd like to think my comment was an invitation to provide details if possible. Asking specific questions is hard when the situation described is so vague. :)

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#119

Post by toasterlovin »

shardling wrote: post #118
toasterlovin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're lacking details, why not ask questions?

I'd like to think my comment was an invitation to provide details if possible. Asking specific questions is hard when the situation described is so vague. :)

> I'd like to think my comment was an invitation to provide details if possible.

Hmmmm, it seems to me that asking a question would be an invitation to provide details. Making a statement about how other individuals in similar situations have been deeply wrong comes across, to me, as an invitation to defensiveness and conflict.

Why not ask simply, "Can you provide more details?"

Re: Stop complaining about the lack of women in tech

#120

Post by jscheel »

shardling wrote: post #118
toasterlovin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're lacking details, why not ask questions?

I'd like to think my comment was an invitation to provide details if possible. Asking specific questions is hard when the situation described is so vague. :)

Honestly, I'm not interested in providing details. The parties involved have already kissed and made up (for the most part), and it serves nothing for me to prove myself on HN. Suffice to say, I took, and still take, the position that we each have a finite amount of political capital and goodwill that we can spend, and that it is more advantageous for everyone to spend it on building instead of destroying. There will always be differences of opinion on what is building vs. destroying, though, and there will always be room for poor communication to confuse the matter for all parties involved. Especially in the tech community, as I'm sure you can imagine :)
Post reply on HN