Live data from Hacker News

Getting free of toxic tech culture

blog.valerieaurora.org

291–300 of 420 posts

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that breakdown, "web developer" very likely includes a large number of designers and marketing specialists. We have firsthand numbers from companies like Google; after years of concerted effort to recruit and retain women, they just hit 20%.

> We have firsthand numbers from companies like Google; after years of concerted effort to recruit and retain women, they just hit 20%. Is it possible that a "concerted effort to recruit and retain women" perhaps does more harm than good? Med schools in this country are now very nearly 50/50[1] and law schools are very slightly over 50% female[2]. Did medicine and law achieve this by the same type of concerted effort…

There are couple of differences between law/medicine and tech which makes attracting women to tech jobs more challenging. I will do here some generalisations, I know there are exceptions.

The traditional job of women in the household was care taking and value transference, meaning the husband brought the money and the woman distribute it and used it. That's why it was only natural for women to work in care taking jobs like medicine, teachers, social worker and such. Jobs like law or banking are value transference, they move money from one person to another without creating any real physical value. Tech generates value so it is subtly but determinately different from what women used to do before going into the work force, it was always the men domain, at least conceptually.

Medicine and Law are very certificate oriented jobs, they are safe jobs. The moment you got the certificate and got into the system you can practice and the experience you accumulate usually path your way to a better position. Tech is something that is valued by your results and innovation, you can be a programmer without any certificate, you must learn new things endlessly and your experience amount to almost nothing when your specific knowledge become obsolete. Women are not innovators in any fields, even in art and music, they hardly create new companies in any field. Law and Medicine doesn't require you to create anything new, you just slot in to the system, the tech world is all about innovation and new value creation.

In the western world women have options and they can do whatever they want. If they are smart and has good intuition, they would rather be lawyers or doctors, if they are not smart they would rather be a teacher and have a stable job for life with benefits. In non western countries like India, Russia or even Israel you will find more women in tech roles because there are not too many other options to earn decently and government jobs like teaching don't pay much. If you give women the options they will go after their hurt, which is not in tech.

Women are attracted to doctors and lawyers and want to be in this environment. That's why you had countless of shows about law and medicine featuring the George Clooneys of the world. Compare it to the IT Crowd and you got a very solid reason why those jobs attracted women in the first place. Women want to be around the highly valued guys of their high school and the same go for society in general. An average white woman will never date an Indian software engineer, that's the sad reality. Women started to look at the tech world only after its status was elevated a bit, they will still rather have a doctor husband over some geeky tech guy, all else being equal.

Bottom line, tech people are not different to any other industry in the way they treat women or minorities or any other group in society. If anything bankers, lawyers, movie producers and to less extent doctors are much more status and class oriented. They invented sniffing coke from strippers butt cracks long before Mark Zuckerberg got his first kiss from his average looking wife. Still a woman will rather work in those environments than in tech from the reasons mentioned above and it is not going to change.

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have firsthand numbers from companies like Google; after years of concerted effort to recruit and retain women, they just hit 20%. Is it possible that a "concerted effort to recruit and retain women" perhaps does more harm than good? Med schools in this country are now very nearly 50/50[1] and law schools are very slightly over 50% female[2]. Did medicine and law achieve this by the same type of concerted effort…

We definitely do NOT treat female doctors as just doctors. Women are the big spenders for medical care. Women greatly outspend men in medical care and women have a strong statistical preference for same gender care, especially for areas like gynecology where 90% of residents in training are female. It's quite easy to find a women's clinic, and while it's fairly easy for a man to find a male GP there are basically no…

> We definitely do NOT treat female doctors as just doctors

I'm not sure if I wasn't very clear by what I meant by that in my original comment or if I just failed to understand your response - while I don't dispute the accuracy of anything you said following this line I don't quite understand how any of it is relevant (at least not regarding what I was trying to say).

When I said "we treat females who are doctors as simply doctors (and likewise for lawyers), not female doctors" I mean:

* I've often heard people being discussed as e.g. "a female dev" but don't often (never that I recall) hear anyone say "female doctor" (I'm referring to casual conversation, not discussions about who's gonna work the catheter on a patient)

* We have female-only hackathons, bootcamps, and meetups, etc, do similar things exist in the medical field and if such things do exist are they as common? Are there many medical conferences open only to female doctors?

* There are often articles/lists of prominent/powerful/etc "women in tech"[1][2][3]. Are similar such articles published in the same quantity for medicine? A quick google yields almost entirely historical results, where's the list of "30 Inspirational Women to Watch in Medicine in 2018"?

* Is it a common practice for hospitals to make reports publicly available that detail what percentage of their doctors are female and how they plan to increase that number?

* Do hospitals generally do anything to recruit (and/or retain) female doctors specifically or are their recruiting and retention efforts just focused on doctors?

[1] https://www.inc.com/john-boitnott/30-inspirational-women-to-...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2017/11/01/the-w...

[3] https://www.computerworlduk.com/galleries/careers/10-most-po...

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#293
post #9

As usual, the actual numbers don't back up the narrative. For example, significantly more men in the study left due to unfairness than women do: 40% vs. 31%. So either women are treated more fairly or these numbers don't mean anything, yet you would never know it from the text, which is all about the horrible things that happen to women. Hmmm...

Lol.

The Feminine Imperative is not seeking truth my friend.

We get this and others will lead their beta lives and continue handing their labor and resources over due to the myth of male guilt and shaming.

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#294

> white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford," Literally 99% of white, male, nerds don't fit this description. Every day in Silicon Valley people show favoritism to individuals that, for purely economic reasons , got into Stanford or Harvard. Investors that went to Stanford invest in founders that went to Stanford because their own investors (LPs) that also went to Stanford will favor them. This is…

> for purely economic reasons, got into Stanford or Harvard.

Can you elaborate on this? I assume Stanford and Harvard had higher admissions requirements (grades, test scores) than my state university? Or is the comparison relative to other elite educational institutions?

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce... For web developers, it's 34%, which is roughly the same as dentists. Computer "science" is kinda BS as a field.

In that breakdown, "web developer" very likely includes a large number of designers and marketing specialists. We have firsthand numbers from companies like Google; after years of concerted effort to recruit and retain women, they just hit 20%.

>includes a large number of designers and marketing specialists

Oh man!! OMG, you just reminded me of something. During the last dot com bubble I was entering college. I was planning on going into the field so I job shadowed a woman at one of the biggest companies in the world at the time. Her title was "e-business" or something like that. It was "e-[something]" like that and the prefix "e" was super popular at the time. Yeah, it was cool at the time...

Anyway,

The entire time I was job shadowing her (which I admit, was only about 4 hours, they gave us presentations and stuff too) she couldn't answer me the question of what she actually does. What her job was. She was kinda like "oh yeah, I work on this program" and showed it to me. I ask "so you built this? Neat!" and she'd answer "oh no, that's not me, that's the guys upstairs did." The entire time she danced around the question of what her job actually is other than "using a computer."

Looking back, holy shit, that was a big sign we we're in a bubble and that bubble was so close to bursting!! I mean, wow, it was like "we are branching into e-business, look at us [smoke and mirrors]"

It was just a really, really bizarre experience at the time - "Job shadow someone who can't tell you what their job is." I'm sure she got laid off 6-12 months later.

She eventually took me to meet the guys upstairs who build the stuff, I wish I got to job shadow them instead. They were polite, humble, friendly, and down to earth. Oh yeah, and they knew what their job was!

Anyway, I feel we're getting the same way here again - a ton of "staff" in the "tech/web business" who are totally superfluous. That's what it seems like to me anyways.

To be clear, I'm not trying to dis women in tech, after all, I am one myself. I'm not saying all women in tech so no work - I'm saying bubbles bring in a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#296

> white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford," Literally 99% of white, male, nerds don't fit this description. Every day in Silicon Valley people show favoritism to individuals that, for purely economic reasons , got into Stanford or Harvard. Investors that went to Stanford invest in founders that went to Stanford because their own investors (LPs) that also went to Stanford will favor them. This is…

Instead of making demands the 99% would do better to start their own companies, prove why the above even matters, then start their own incubators to compete with Stanford or Sand Hill Road or whatever. Whining how other people aren't doing what you want, is stale. Demanding that other people do things for you, signals weakness. Take what's yours and be successful on your own ingenuity.

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#297

What I would be interested in is how many people look for images of Valerie Aurora that would not look for images if the article would be from a male author. +1 if you did look but wouldn't in case of a male author, -1 otherwise.

Discrimination... men should be creeped as much too.

The injustice

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#298

> white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford," Literally 99% of white, male, nerds don't fit this description. Every day in Silicon Valley people show favoritism to individuals that, for purely economic reasons , got into Stanford or Harvard. Investors that went to Stanford invest in founders that went to Stanford because their own investors (LPs) that also went to Stanford will favor them. This is…

Are you proposing that investors give money to founders without meeting them first?

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#299

I think this was well written. There were a few instances where, upon first reading it, I objected. But rereading it, I thought the language used was chosen well. I have one main gripe, though: The scope limitation to tech. > "Toxic tech cultures are those that demean and devalue you as holistic, multifaceted human beings. Toxic tech cultures are those that prioritize profits and growth over human and societal well b…

In fact, it very probably is a tech-specific problem. Among the STEM fields, CS is almost uniquely imbalanced. STEM fields in general range from ~30-55% women, and those fields include things like Mathematics --- anyone who has gone to an academic cryptography workshop has probably noticed how many more women there are in the room --- which are strong proxies for CS ability. And, of course, among the professions in g…

>In fact, it very probably is a tech-specific problem. Among the STEM fields, CS is almost uniquely imbalanced.

sounds like you equate the toxic environment definition as given by the article with the issue of low representation of women. Well, do you really think that the environment isnt' toxic (as defined by the article) in the industries where women are over-represented? I mean do you really think that the employees aren't treated like replaceable cogs or companies don't pursue profit and growth as the first and foremost priority in hospitality or in the clothing sewing industry ?

Re: Getting free of toxic tech culture

#300

> white, male, nerds who’ve dropped out of Harvard or Stanford," Literally 99% of white, male, nerds don't fit this description. Every day in Silicon Valley people show favoritism to individuals that, for purely economic reasons , got into Stanford or Harvard. Investors that went to Stanford invest in founders that went to Stanford because their own investors (LPs) that also went to Stanford will favor them. This is…

> for purely economic reasons, got into Stanford or Harvard. Can you elaborate on this? I assume Stanford and Harvard had higher admissions requirements (grades, test scores) than my state university? Or is the comparison relative to other elite educational institutions?

Stanford and Harvard do have higher admissions standards, though they also take legacy status and donations into account, which might be what staunch is referring to.

However, they also practice affirmative action, which means some VCs who have a bias towards these institutions may consider minorities who they never otherwise would.

So it's not nearly as unfair as staunch is describing.

Post reply on HN