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

Nevertheless, She Coded

dev.to

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 398 posts

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#271

Post by throwaway91111 »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #257
throwaway91111 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only sexist thing here is your support of a baseless claim. If it's not baseless, presumably you have something to offer. However, without evidence, you are most likely wrong. Does that wrongness amount to sexism? Hard to say; my inclination says yes since you're referring to shuffling hundreds of dimensions defining employment into "life choices". Yes, that is probably a factor; culture is a powerful force. But…

The only contention I have is one you agreed to elsewhere: that the actual aggregate wage-gap once you've controlled for common variables (such as life choices) is 3-6% (with women earning more in some fields), which likely isn't significant or correctable. A difference on that magnitude can easily be something about aggregate behavior correlated to sex, an uncontrolled for variable, or just random chance. So let me…

To be clear, I am not accepting that margin; I'm simply regrettably far from my spreadsheet for 2015 to which I can refer. My objections are a) the assumption "life choice" is NOT a sexist dog whistle, that b) you're talking about aggregate wage gap, which reduces the situation into a single statistic, and c) that a sex linked difference isn't worth addressing even if it does have a dominating effect in today's economy (which I doubt, and evidence is weak at best).

However, there is abundant evidence that there's a systemic divide in opportunities. This is easy to see in the aggregate and particular. That is the interesting thing in itself: if we could be assured that the gap could sexist solely for life choices, this wouldn't be an interesting topic. That's a devilishly hard thing to argue for, however, so id prefer to move forward as a society assuming that we can do more to expose opportunities to everyone, assure that people are protected in their right to follow opportunities, and that we can demonstrate the effect of the policies at moving toward an ideal of equal pay.

If we can't move towards that, perhaps our ideal, well, isn't what society wants. I doubt that we've even approached that level of confidence in our support of communities subject to subtle bias difficult to divorce from "life choices".

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#272

Post by kazagistar »

_xhok wrote: post #196

I wish comments were scored in a way that was weighted by the degree of bravery it took to write them. What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the-vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

That's why reddit has a sort by controvertial.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#273

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #271
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only contention I have is one you agreed to elsewhere: that the actual aggregate wage-gap once you've controlled for common variables (such as life choices) is 3-6% (with women earning more in some fields), which likely isn't significant or correctable. A difference on that magnitude can easily be something about aggregate behavior correlated to sex, an uncontrolled for variable, or just random chance. So let me…

To be clear, I am not accepting that margin; I'm simply regrettably far from my spreadsheet for 2015 to which I can refer. My objections are a) the assumption "life choice" is NOT a sexist dog whistle, that b) you're talking about aggregate wage gap, which reduces the situation into a single statistic, and c) that a sex linked difference isn't worth addressing even if it does have a dominating effect in today's econo…

I object to the contention that there arent biology correlated preferences and differences (such as attribute variance) which will cause biases in the distribution of labor and aptitude, which likely will always cause some form of imbalance in statistics. I also object to the notiom that we want equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity (even though that is harder to measure).

That being said, I think we should generally imrpove sexist behavior and systems, which hurt both sexes (albeit, in different ways).

I just think the "wage gap" is one of the least sexist fascets of modern society (if at 3-6%), and mostly represents people perpetuating a misunderstanding of statistics. So in that way, I feel like people are over-solving a mostly solved problem, which seems likely to lead to more sexism, not less.

I think that effort spent on fixing the larger issues are also likely to stabilize remaining issues with wages, and we would all be better served focusing on the large gaps in other statistics instead of the small one here.

That said, Im always happy to see new statistics that tell me Im full of shit, so if you find what you're looking for, please post it.

Otherwise, have a good night! :)

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#274

Post by ziikutv »

_xhok wrote: post #196

I wish comments were scored in a way that was weighted by the degree of bravery it took to write them. What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the-vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

Simple.

Do soldiers reason when given orders?

Do sheep flock alone?

This forum, like most places is no different. Regardless of what you are trying to say, best to just stfu because there will be another person awaiting to single their virtues.

Also, 99% of stats on the internet are bullshit, including this one.

Take everything with a grain of salt and just be a nice person. That's my motto. In addition to don't raise pitch forks when I hear a stat

Happy woman's day.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#275

Post by ziikutv »

handojin wrote: post #259
_xhok wrote: post #196

I wish comments were scored in a way that was weighted by the degree of bravery it took to write them. What a shame that most of the top comments here are boring, stand-up-for-the-vulnerable types agreed with by the majority— "women face difficulties in tech, and we should help them whenever we can"—while the downvoted posts are the ones trying (not necessarily successfully) to arrive at politically incorrect truths.

Perhaps you could share these politically incorrect /truths/? I'm not through the thread but I'm missing them.

Main one being about the wage gaps being inflated. Not sure if thats true.

Additionally, why don't we speak about rights of minorities on this forum. I don't think xor meant anything negative by this. A good question to ask but I guess not today?

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#276

Post by yxhuvud »

bsder wrote: post #208

I really wish they would quit promulgating this because it's actually counterproductive: "women face continued pay disparity" Seeing this statement tells me immediately that the author is grinding an ax. In some fields of engineering (EE, for example), women actually get paid more (104% last I checked). And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay disparities in most tech fields almost disappe…

And why should you control for time off for family? Except for the really early time after birth, both parents can do that. Is it the fault of the employer? Well, perhaps they could be more persuasive in motivating the women to work and more accepting of men taking days off to care for their sick children.

EDIT: Use similar term for both genders.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#277

Post by rifung »

microcolonel wrote: post #93
zephyrthenoble wrote: post #21

I'm frankly quite surprised by the initial wave of comments disparaging this message. The facts are that women are poorly represented in the tech community[1], and do make less than men[2]. Any attempt to let women feel more accepted and bring about much needed change should be championed, not picked apart and belittled because you feel like you are personally being attacked when people are just asking for help. 1. h…

You really have to ask yourself: Why would women, as a cohort, make the same amount per individual as men? Do you assume that nothing can be different enough between men and women to reasonably justify the statistics? I know of women who are paid more than me in tech, and I know why. I know of women who are paid less than me, and I can think of n reasons why. As for sheer numbers, ask yourself: are there any industri…

> I don't know a single woman who likes sales work, and I know at least a few who have given it a serious try.

I don't work in sales so perhaps someone better qualified can comment, but isn't the stereotype that the culture in sales is like that of fraternities? I can imagine how that's probably not welcoming to women, especially when the sales revolves around social relationships.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#278

Post by KirinDave »

bsder wrote: post #208

I really wish they would quit promulgating this because it's actually counterproductive: "women face continued pay disparity" Seeing this statement tells me immediately that the author is grinding an ax. In some fields of engineering (EE, for example), women actually get paid more (104% last I checked). And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay disparities in most tech fields almost disappe…

> And, when you control for experience, time off for family, etc., pay disparities in most tech fields almost disappear.

Okay, so spoiler alert, I'm grinding an axe right now.

It's completely ridiculous to imply that analysts are not normalizing for hours worked. That's one of the most basic things they do, and you really should provide proof in the form of a study that both published its methodology and has been done in the last 5 years that didn't account for this, setting aside that one clickbait publicity stunt from Glassdoor. People keep citing other studies that "don't do this" and it's not true, or point to the national average and say that extends to knowledge work and that's absurd.

"The pay gap" is not simply lockstep salary progression. It was just the most obviously unfair and lowest-hanging fruit. That's only the start of it. The fact that women are often passed over for promotion because industries frown on maternity leave, the fact that harassment leaves women with fewer mentorship opportunities, the fact that many environments treat interviews like hazing, all these things add up to create aforementioned gap.

Your quote up at the top is the root of the pay gap. It's your belief that someone who works a reasonable sum of hours but then goes to have a child should be paid less. You believe that someone who takes time off for a reasonable work-life balance or a family emergency should be paid less. That attitude is bad for everyone, but it's especially bad for women in much of western society's current form.

And yes, there are still places where women DO get paid less for the same work. That is not done yet. And until it's so rare that it's unheard of, we're going to keep pointing it out.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#279

Post by 1_2__3 »

mgbmtl wrote: post #150
dethswatch wrote: post #16

Warren violated the rules- it has _nothing_ to do with her gender. Whether her points are validate or not, the rules were followed as they would have been with any man. If she wants to get her opinion out, she can hold a press conference outside the Senate or simply call Maddow, like she did- a friendly audience that would allow her to speak as long as they had time for.

Said rules are not applied systematically, and there is clear bias in how they are applied.

I look forward to your evidence of sexism there then, since otherwise any inconsistency is entirely irrelevant to the "strong woman stood up to men" narrative (and please realize I say that as an enthusiastic Warren supporter).

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#280

Post by 1_2__3 »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #191
zeveb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconded, and it's why I flagged the article. The Senate has rules, and those rules are fairly enforced regardless of gender. Tying a movement to the perceived unfairness of a fair enforcement seems to me to be unwise.

>The Senate has rules, and those rules are fairly enforced regardless of gender. Later that same night, a male senator from Oregon read the complete letter that Warren was trying to read from the floor of the senate.

Did he do it according to the rules of Senate procedure? Honest question. Please provide an article or reference.
Post reply on HN