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

381–390 of 398 posts

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#381

Post by kampkrusty »

ziikutv wrote: post #275
handojin wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"why don't we speak about rights of minorities on this forum."

Yo, you post here. You're factually, actively posting and could post about rights of minorities, too. So I'm asking you: why don't you post about these things? Why is it something only brought up as an ideal in a discussion that's about something else, but not something done by you on its own without outside consensus or approval? What has stopped you so far?

Think a lot about this for the rest of your life. Seriously. I have, and it's revealed a lot of truths I was too stubborn to see about myself. I feel dumb for not being introspective, thoughtful, and self-critical about my own set ways and behavior at a younger age. I thought I was, but I was in my own world, rarely challenging myself on new information.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#382

Post by mirage01 »

edblarney wrote: post #266
panglott wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, reading this comment just a week after Susan Fowler's post on her experiences at Uber is surreal. It's not the ones complaining about this stuff who are "dividing the genders".

People who claim that 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men' - when studies overwhelmingly show that this is false when taking into consideration roles and hour etc. - are definitely 'dividing genders'. Pay equity debates require nuance. Most of those promoting the issue seem to fail to grasp that. That there are some sexist pigs in the world (ie. some guy at Uber), does not make the world full of sex…

> "People who claim that 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men' - when studies overwhelmingly show that this is false when taking into consideration roles and hour etc. - are definitely 'dividing genders'."

Women didn't start anything here in terms of division by gender. Did you think JFK signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 for fun or something?

If there is overstepping, consider that they may just be trying to correct the overstepping of the other side. It's one of those things you can only appreciate by having your own skin in the game.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#383

Post by dang »

hl5 wrote: post #375

The only reason this garbage gets published is because it's trendy to discriminate against white males.

Please don't post grandiose inflammatory claims about divisive topics. That's trolling, and destructive of the thoughtful conversation we're hoping for.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13826005 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#384

Post by sheepmullet »

KirinDave wrote: post #377
sheepmullet wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because hours worked doesn't affect salary. > Unless we're talking consulting, that's exactly what Salary lets you do. We are clearly having communication issues and I'm not sure how you are addressing what I'm talking about. My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay. > You're effectively trying to stifle and derail the entire conversation If the conversation starts from an inconcl…

> My point is: Work longer -> slightly more productive -> slightly higher pay. And I'm telling you this is not a foregone conclusion. > If the conversation starts from an inconclusive or flimsy premise then it should be derailed. No. It should include both the initial position and the specific cases that inspired it and then move to a broader case. This is not customer service, these are people's lives. > It is far t…

I was talking about the specifics of a single study on comparing the tech industry with other industries on the wage gap (and I guess more broadly at the fact that people misuse these studies).

You are broadening the conversation to look at sexism in broader society.

Let's stick to the specifics here.

> making it all about you and your (higher than any other sociological or scientific field) standards for allowing discussion.

Nonsense. Most rigorous wage gap studies control for a lot more than the GlassDoor study.

The particular data (working hours) that I'm saying should have been included is straightforward to measure and collect.

> You're so angry you're willing to argue that maybe pay shouldn't be equal after all.

A swing and a miss. It's like you aren't even trying to read what I'm writing.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#385

Post by intellegacy »

fatbird wrote: post #370
intellegacy wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh and your claim that they're being filtered out by sexism doesn't qualify as handwaving? Look, if women are being unfairly excluded from the pipeline then fight THAT. Don't blame Google or Facebook or X company for hiring the best they can. They have "diversity consultants" on their payroll for christs sake. This isn't an issue that is gonna magically be solved in a few years. Making the "pipeline" more diverse tak…

We have voluminous statistical evidence that women are judged more harshly than men in all phases of hiring when the only differentiator is being perceived as a woman. That's not handwaving, that's decades of study. Handwaving is "for whatever (social/biological/cultural) reason". We know there's a pipeline problem, and we are fighting that. We don't think it's going to be solved overnight either, and critically, not…

Stick to your original point.

this is in regards to Google.

" the more likely reason is that women are being filtered out of the pipeline by sexism, not some mysterious "maybe they just don't want to" handwaving."

So you're alleging that Google is judging women more harshly than men, "at all phases of hiring".

Provide a source for THAT, please.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#386

Post by edblarney »

mirage01 wrote: post #382
edblarney wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who claim that 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men' - when studies overwhelmingly show that this is false when taking into consideration roles and hour etc. - are definitely 'dividing genders'. Pay equity debates require nuance. Most of those promoting the issue seem to fail to grasp that. That there are some sexist pigs in the world (ie. some guy at Uber), does not make the world full of sex…

> "People who claim that 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar as compared to men' - when studies overwhelmingly show that this is false when taking into consideration roles and hour etc. - are definitely 'dividing genders'." Women didn't start anything here in terms of division by gender. Did you think JFK signed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 for fun or something? If there is overstepping, consider that they may just be tr…

JFK did not sign a law stating that across all America, pay averages for women and men must be the same.

He signed a law stating that a 'female plumber should be paid the same as a male plumber of equal qualifications'.

Broadly - this is the case. There is essentially pay equality in America.

Men and women do different jobs, and have different lifestyles, which constitutes the differential in pay.

The inability to understand this, and to project misleading data is definitely divisive.

If you said: "very few women have Eng jobs because so few of them get Eng degrees - let's start a program to encourage girls to get in to Engineering" - then this would not be divisive.

But if you said: "Women should have 50% of the Eng. jobs even though they only make up 13% of the talent pool" - then this is extremely divisive.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#387

Post by [deleted] »

fatbird wrote: post #215
gspetr wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are software companies composed of all men (or 95% men if we want to be a bit more relaxed). Successful ones - as in making profit. Where are all-women (or 95% women) companies? If you can get away with paying them less, where are all the capitalists exploiting the market inefficiency and getting rich in the process? Hell, nowadays companies like Starbucks[0] routinely put social causes first, profits second. S…

If women are underpaid because they're (consciously or not) undervalued as workers by entrepreneurs, then those same entrepreneurs are unlikely to visualize a net salary savings. You're basically saying: if women are as good as men but you can pay them less, why not hire women? And the answer is that the same factors that lead to women being underpaid lead to not seeing them as interchangeable hire with males.

[deleted]

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#388

Post by [deleted] »

hexane360 wrote: post #177
ar15saveslives wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they make less than men, why don't companies hire women alone? Don't they want to save money on salaries?

Because women are subconsciously undervalued as workers. This discussion is complex and it's not entirely obvious how much of the pay gap is caused by discrimination, but this is one stupid argument.

[deleted]

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#389

Post by spopejoy »

msimpson wrote: post #327

I've handled the hiring of almost all Web developers within my company for the last half decade, and in that time I have hired absolutely zero women. Yet, this has nothing to do with discrimination and much more to do with the applicants themselves and the numbers by which they apply. During this time, I've seen Web design positions attract females applicants by about a two-thirds majority, whereas Web development po…

In truth, your real issue is you don't value an integrated workplace. Once you decide that it is a top priority to have a diverse workforce, you will find ways to attract, grow, and retain diverse talent.

You clearly have not decided this is important to you, which is your choice. However, because you choose not to pursue it, you are now concluding that you are entirely blameless for your objectively abysmal performance in hiring women. That is not a valid conclusion.

My experience is that once I chose to prioritize hiring women, a bunch of my own hidden biases, assumptions and yes, values, became clear. I realized that I had missed opportunities to hire women in the past. I realized that I had connected values I shared with people I hired as objectively "good" when in fact they just matched mine. I have a high opinion of my skills, so it's perhaps natural that I would do so, but in the end it actively hurt my abilities to recruit a diverse workforce. It was actually quite painful to realize I was the reason for not hiring women in many cases.

The other thing to realize is women, like all humans, have their own biases, and instinctively suss out those organizations that are seriously hiring women, and avoid those that don't. So until you decide that you want to recruit women, and succeed in doing so, you will continue to have a terrible record for hiring women.

Re: Nevertheless, She Coded

#390

Post by gspetr »

fatbird wrote: post #366
gspetr wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One way to understand the effects of systemic "isms" is that the targets have to continually deal with a headwind that others don't, and the cumulative effect of this is like compound interest. Nevertheless there do exist profitable apps written by low caste Indians living on a few dollars a day and having virtually no social welfare safety net. Do you honestly believe that women in the US have it worse than those…

When you can find a few examples of some group succeeding or being where the vast majority of their group are not, it's called "tokenism", and it's a self-defeating argument. Is it common for low caste Indians with no security to successfully bootstrap profitable apps? Are they a significant constituency amongst tech leaders in India? Rags-to-riches stories only prove something is possible, not that it's normal. We h…

If you want a significant constituency I'll give you one.

Do all the daughters of upper middle class software engineers do not exist? That's among tech leaders' families in the US.

So where are they? Or is it that they have seen their fathers' jobs and decided they want no part of it?

Post reply on HN