511–520 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. My salary here is great by local standards. If you're comparing to the US, don't. Salaries in the US for SWE are much higher than anywhere else.
I was intentional when I said "the developed world", so including Western-Europe, South Korea and so on, not just the US. The fact you're on HN speaking perfect English already means you're likely to be very much above the median, salary-wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your sentiment. In theory there is no difference between a plumber or construction worker vs a CEO when it comes to DEI. However, in the real world, a female CEO or President is much more likely to inspire girls to work towards those roles, compared to a model female plumber. They call it "glass ceiling" not "glass floor" for a reason. Those feminist organizations are definitely hypocritical, no question…
if broadening female involvement in the upper levels is good, it makes no sense that it isnt also in the "lower levels" (though I would say its not proper to describe plumbing as a lowlevel job). The goal is NOT to "inspire girls", the goal is to make the job sector reflect the population, no? for feminists it seems like only the nice cushy office jobs needs to reflect the population, not the dirty labour
the problem is to identify what the barriers are and how to actually get rid of them. lack of inspiration can be a barrier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I say that statistically there should be one or two women on the team, that is already taking account the fact that women are the minority in tech. Women are about 23% of software engineers. So if you have a team of 10 with zero women, that is somewhat suspicious to me as an applicant. Is my prospective future team hiring the best talent or are they letting their biases creep in to their hiring process? Source:…
You did not address the point about the large, wealthiest software companies hiring up all the best women candidates. You are probably correct these companies are not hiring the best talent. But the reason is not necessarily bias. It's just as likely that they can't afford the best talent, including women who the top companies are competing for to improve their diversity metrics.
Imagine a regional bank or insurance company that hires you off of a couple of pulse check interviews and your general vibes. Those are the worst for bias hiring. (I’ve worked at two or three of those).
You don’t get your foot in the door to interview at Google or Amazon unless you pass a rigorous technical challenge. Tech companies need people who are as efficient as possible since that’s their core business. Companies that write software but aren’t tech companies just need passable technology, they need a butt in the seat.
So I don’t really agree with the premise that the wealthy tech giants are scooping up all the women. They’re scooping up top talent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like that we're not beating around the bush and admitting that businesses only donate money to causes they think will financially benefit them. That there are no altruistic actions by a business entity, everything is either an operational expense or an investment. This is 100% true in practice, so you're absolutely correct here. I just hope that we're in agreement that this is a bad state of affairs if businesses h…
>I just hope that we're in agreement that this is a bad state of affairs if businesses have completely written off doing the right thing in favor of profit 100% of the time. Maybe 99% of the time. But sure, the altruistic businesses are usually the first to shutter. Reality is cruel and very few entrepreneurs are so well off they can bleed money for their cause. Those kinds of people lobby policy instead of being cus…
If things play out the way I expect, I hope these businesses learn the hard way that doing the wrong thing isn't always profitable, or survivable if you side with Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could read it that way, but she said "with sadness and devastation". You are taking some extreme liberties with your interpretation of what she's saying. The sentiment she's sharing is clearly quite negative. I don't think she's happily wrapping up her mission, I think she's going out of business and has no ability to continue her mission as she would like to.
We can still view operating for 17 years to be a success. We can still view helping women in tech for 17 years to have improved the world, even if it cannot continue.
Big shocker that you don't give a shit, Mr. Guyorama. Condolences to the women in your life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if broadening female involvement in the upper levels is good, it makes no sense that it isnt also in the "lower levels" (though I would say its not proper to describe plumbing as a lowlevel job). The goal is NOT to "inspire girls", the goal is to make the job sector reflect the population, no? for feminists it seems like only the nice cushy office jobs needs to reflect the population, not the dirty labour
the goal is to remove barriers. reflecting the population implies that every job should have 50/50 gender parity. i don't think that should be a goal unless there is a benefit, such as in school where children need both male and female role models. the problem is to identify what the barriers are and how to actually get rid of them. lack of inspiration can be a barrier.
The biggest barrier of them all for both men and women is that young adults will look to similar aged and gendered peers when choosing career paths. Such choices generally provide a feeling of safety which provide protection against setbacks and doubt (something most student and later professionals generally face multiple times at some point in their life). This concept is a major aspect of gender equality paradox, which predict higher rate of gender segregation with fewer barriers.
The most effective way to get rid of those barriers is to create alternative forms of protection that give similar effects. Mentorship programs has shown to be very effective substitute for both women and men, but they are costly and do not fix the initial problem when young adults chooses career paths.
Sweden has public data on gender segregation, and they provide an additional risk factor of gender segregation. Career paths that has natural points for segregation has generally higher rate of gender segregation. Examples of those are teachers who can first segregate on age/educational level, and then further segregate on subject. An other is nurse, doctors and other health care specialists, who can later segregate further based on specialty. Give people multiple chances to self-segregate based on identity and they will do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can still view operating for 17 years to be a success. We can still view helping women in tech for 17 years to have improved the world, even if it cannot continue.
You (a man) can feel fine about a charity that never benefited you going under? Big shocker that you don't give a shit, Mr. Guyorama. Condolences to the women in your life.
Have some class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I just hope that we're in agreement that this is a bad state of affairs if businesses have completely written off doing the right thing in favor of profit 100% of the time. Maybe 99% of the time. But sure, the altruistic businesses are usually the first to shutter. Reality is cruel and very few entrepreneurs are so well off they can bleed money for their cause. Those kinds of people lobby policy instead of being cus…
The next 4 years of Trump will be an interesting time then, because we're going to discover which businesses will trade our lives for profit. If doing the right thing comes second to doing what's profitable, businesses with the mindset you describe are the kinds of businesses that will assist in genocide. If things play out the way I expect, I hope these businesses learn the hard way that doing the wrong thing isn't…
If he gets re-elected, it might not be only 4 years.
At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis): - Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration. - Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) - Affirma…
> Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) Can you give a specific example of a thing you do in your identity group that could be misperceived if done across your identity group
I am at close to zero rush within group (creepiness, leading on, sexual harassment, etc.). Same type of casual physical contact across gender groups, and it's a trip to HR or a cancellation.
A lot of language takes on different making across cultures, and there are literally textbooks about how white casual language is perceived as disrespectful in many African American cultures. The reverse is casual African American behavior incorrectly perceived as aggressive in white culture.
I like looking at this in international studies since there is not the baseline baggage of racism or sexism, and Meyer is a good study.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the goal is to remove barriers. reflecting the population implies that every job should have 50/50 gender parity. i don't think that should be a goal unless there is a benefit, such as in school where children need both male and female role models. the problem is to identify what the barriers are and how to actually get rid of them. lack of inspiration can be a barrier.
There are many studies that have identified barriers that causes gender segregation. The most interesting aspect that I find in those studies is that the barriers are similar for both male and female dominated industries. The biggest barrier of them all for both men and women is that young adults will look to similar aged and gendered peers when choosing career paths. Such choices generally provide a feeling of safet…
but i think we can do more with mentorship and go beyond its perceived limits. however getting there takes us to rethink education as a whole.
there are a few aspects: for one i think everyone should have a mentor at least for the first few years of their career. that should be part of our education system. for example, every university graduate should be required to mentor at least one new student. every university student as well as trade apprentice should mentor in highschool. etc... in the montessori education method older students always teach younger ones, so mentoring at a higher level is really just an extension of that.
this would obviously be easier to ask in countries where higher education is free, because then its fair to ask for something back.
from these, mentoring in highschool is probably the most important because that's when careers are chosen. i remember that time, and i remember being all alone with my choices. i really would have loved to be able to get more insights into the potential careers that i was interested in.