Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
Kant and Hegel are... different.
And the Marxian dialectic is supposed to be different still.
Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
401–410 of 626 posts
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem like a third possibility — it sounds like the same thing as "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because they are innately less capable." It's theoretically possible that women just generally suck at computers, but if that's someone's argument, I'd prefer they come out and actually make the argument instead of throwing around smokescreens about "equality of outcom…
Capable isn't the same thing as interested. I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it). As The Atlantic said: > Then again, it could just be that, feeling financially secure and on equal footing with men, some women will always choose to follow their passions, rather than whatever labor economists recommend. And those passions don’t always lie within science [or technolog…
I know many smart people who have no interest in programming (and wonder why I enjoy it)
I had an ex-girlfriend who could code, but had no interest in doing that for a job. I'm currently married to a woman with 3 degrees, one of which is a PhD, and she also can code, but says she feels sorry for me, because it's my job.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#403High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick but are being told by every voice that they are privileged, it’s their fault, they are bad whereas women have sooooo many extra programs and positive reinforcement to succeed. No one with a straight face can tell me women in entry level…
> 2 friends confided that they were asked to trade sexual favors for promotions albeit this was 20 years ago and that was the deciding factor for them moving to the Bay. These things are horrible and I can’t imagime the emotional trauma for that.
Of course, this could have, and does[0] happen in the Bay Area, too - in just the last year even.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/technology/uber-sexual-ha...
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#404As a side note: I have recently come over a university which promised a gender equality in "all our science degrees", which it explained as an "admission of 50% males, 50% females". But how can it be a "gender equality", if 80% of the applicants are males?
Was it in advertising or other official materials? If so, could you reference them?
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ll repeat points that aren’t my original ideas, but are painfully obvious here. It’s very simple what it’s become: sexist against men. This is what happens when you aim for equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I believe we’re in a Kantian second stage. We were sexist against women. Now, we’re sexist against men. The hopeful third step
I think I prefer dynamic systems view. We're oscillating. We've been under the target, overcorrected, and we're above the target now. Like always in (widely-understood) politics, this will be met with another overcorrection; all we can hope for is that there's dampening in the system, so that we'll converge on target at some point.
I don’t really like being accepting of oscillation.
Forward movement, progress, shouldn’t be defined as updating who we discriminate against.
Progress would be to stop discriminating. Optimizing for equality of outcome seems to be causing discrimination. That doesn’t look like progress to me.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic
Kant and Hegel are... different.
> Kant and Hegel are... different
Hegel, when discussing his dialectic, ascribed it to Kant. Presumably to keep philosophy majors on their toes.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy. If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.
I'm talking about outcomes for female programmers here. You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less than male programmers, who presumably do program? Or what? Who are these female programmers who don't program that you're apparently so interested in talking about?
You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less
This is weird. That's not how I read what leereeves wrote at all. Yet you repeatedly insist that's what he's saying. Are you perhaps projecting an opinion onto leereeves? Preferences can very much influence the outcomes of a training pipeline for a field. (I say this as someone who taught a class attended by Chic Tech students.) That's just common sense.
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem like a third possibility — it sounds like the same thing as "The groups who haven't traditionally been in power are in that position because they are innately less capable." It's theoretically possible that women just generally suck at computers, but if that's someone's argument, I'd prefer they come out and actually make the argument instead of throwing around smokescreens about "equality of outcom…
It's interesting that you still don't understand the third possibility. I wonder if it has something to do with why many hard-leaning leftists also only consider the first two as possibilities.
OK, let me give you an example outcome and maybe you can explain to me how the third possibility applies in a way that is meaningfully distinct from the first two.
Outcome: The women working as programmers at FooSoft make on average 10% less than the men working there.
Possible reasons:
1. Lack of opportunity (e.g. people in power at FooSoft have bias against them makes it harder for them to have their contributions valued)
2. They just aren't as good as the men
3. They...have different interests in some way that apparently doesn't make them worse but does make them deserve to be paid less?
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't try to put words in my mouth with that false dichotomy. If someone isn't interested in programming, they don't "suck" at it. They just don't do it.
I'm talking about outcomes for female programmers here. You're saying that female programmers don't program, and therefore they deserve to be paid less than male programmers, who presumably do program? Or what? Who are these female programmers who don't program that you're apparently so interested in talking about?
Women who achieve the same things as men deserve the same compensation. I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with that.
This article is about a comprehensive review of salaries at Google that concluded that overall, women who achieved the same job levels as men were being paid more.
The opportunity vs. outcome question is applied to the question of representation. How many women should we expect to see at Google, across job levels, if the process for selecting and promoting people is fair?
Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men
#410It's interesting how this sort of discussion is actually leading HN to be more of an echo chamber. Most of my female friends in tech completely avoid it now because it seems that discussions that get voted up tend to ignore or belittle their experiences—even if there may be lots of great points and perspectives mixed in. In fact, the only response I noticed explicitly from someone who identified as female was being downvoted last I checked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19306248
That can feel rather insulting and demoralizing, and why would anyone want to subject themselves to that? Instead many women just avoid HN—which in turn means that it becomes more male dominated, with more upvotes and mindshare to comments about experiences of "the other" that may not by particularly well informed—because it's not worth the time of a woman to even chime in.
Regardless of your opinions on these specific issues, this dynamic of driving away women decreases the likelihood of everyone gaining a well informed perspective. It doesn't just impact gender issues. It impacts discussions on the importance and potential markets of startups that provide products which aren't just male focused. And you can end up with more things like: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/23/truth-w...
Not an easy dynamic to "fix", but a useful thing to remember when thinking about communities, incentives, and impacts...