On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team • Hacker News Board

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#61

Post by RIMR » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:08 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #49

programmernews3 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of the left - they want to treat people differently based on their gender and skin colour. In the UK, white British make up 40% of medical doctors. Would you support quotas and biased hiring to increase the number of white British doctors? It would make it more representative of the population. What about primary school teachers? If 9 females and 1 male go for a job, should the male always get preference?

Yes straw men can always be found. But for the other 100 high-paying jobs and industries, there's a lot to be done.

This isn't a strawman. These are real examples of where white men make up the minority in a field.

If you would support treating women special in fields where they are a minority, while opposing treating men special in fields where they are a minority you clearly have a sexist bias.

This isn't about leveling the playing field for a specific industry, this is about "reversing" the problem by pointing discrimination in the opposite direction that is has pointed historically. This ignores the fact that sexual discrimination is still occurring, and is even being encouraged!

Unless you can answer programmernews3's question or provide sourced statistics about these "100 high-paying jobs and industries", I can't regard your argument as anything other than an appeal to emotion.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#62

Post by new_corp_dev » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:11 PM UTC

neogodless wrote: post #60

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>one cannot call positive discrimination "reverse sexism" or "sexism". Positive discrimination for one person is negative discrimination against another, of whom the discriminator has power over the discriminated. So it still fits as being a *ism. That is assuming you even accept the whole 'power + mistreatment' bit.

No - the actor in this scenario, the one with power - is not the male or female engineer, but rather the employer or conference coordinator. They may very well be male, but they are giving the female engineer, who as a class have less power then the class of male engineers a leg up in getting an opportunity to speak. The male engineers experiencing what you call reverse discrimination are still in a position of power…

Giving someone an opportunity based on a protected class, which denies that same opportunity to someone else of that protected class, is discrimination. It is treating someone negatively based on their protected class. It's the textbook definition of discrimination.

Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#63

Post by lordCarbonFiber » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:12 PM UTC

CatDevURandom wrote: post #26

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you are taking a very juvenile view here. One of the foundational axioms in the push for greater diversity in tech (and one I firmly support) is the idea that there is great value in a community of differing experiences and thoughts. If you accept that it's only logical to take female candidates over male candidates until the difference in their ability is judged to be greater than the advantages of adding tha…

> very juvenile view here What an absurd characterization. I get that you don't agree with this person, but what -- if anything -- did this person say that was juvenile ?

>Positive discrimination is not positive, because discrimination is never positive, no matter which group it favours.

This is the particular statement I take offense to (and should have just quoted in the parent, such is life). Black and white generalities with no argument or data to back it in my experience are the exclusive domain of adolescents and television pundents. Neither of which I would expect to be upvoted here.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#64

Post by RIMR » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:16 PM UTC

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #37

jonahrd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc? If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her…

It is weird that discrimination is a four letter word when it is absurd to try to treat everyone equally. But... either we can discriminate based on gender or we can't. If you have an all male team where most members are extremely shy around women (like bad enough they probably should see a therapist), then it would make perfect business sense to only seek another man for that team. But discrimination based on gender…

"discrimination" is a very vague word. Technically all employers practice some kind of discrimination. Applying for a job is an exercise in getting discriminated against (typically for your skills, education and experience).

The key here is that discrimination against someone for their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is unethical, no matter what kind of social wrong you aim to right.

Giving women more opportunities may seem like it's progressive. I mean, "we're helping women"! But it still contributes to defining people based on their gender, rather than their skills and abilities.

I worked at a company a few years ago that would ONLY hire women to work at the front desk. This was a deliberate move to make the office look more diverse than it actually was, because most of our male employees worked outside of the view of our visitors.

That, and the CEO openly admitted that he enjoyed "seeing a pretty face every time he came to work".

How do you separate my blatantly sexist employer's hiring of women for visibility from social-justice oriented businesses doing the same thing to "further women"?

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#65

Post by neogodless » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

contactmatts wrote: post #5

cbeach wrote: post #4

Bryana refers several times to a fear she has been chosen or favoured due to her gender, and because of the positive discrimination we have allowed to happen in our industry. Positive discrimination is not positive, because discrimination is never positive, no matter which group it favours. And here we see the consequences - a cohort of women who will suffer the paranoia of not knowing whether they were selected on m…

Exactly. When an entity (i.e. a company, tech conference, etc.) chooses someone for any reason outside of merit, it's discrimination, and marginalizes the hard work of others.

This isn't a split second in time in a vacuum. There is a history and a future. The history is that males dominate the industry, and if we look further back, there is much more to the divide between the genders. The future hasn't been written, but if we want it to differ from the past, we have to make decisions that affect that.

In order for young girls (whether we're talking about children or just engineers early in their career path) to feel confident, to relate and feel like a natural part of the industry, there has to be a change. There has to be more females at conferences. There has to be more female leadership. If you continue to look only at a point of time (a result of history) and say "right now there are more men qualified then women" for every decision, you prevent a future where women had the same comfort and opportunity to truly level the playing field.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#66

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:18 PM UTC

RIMR wrote: post #64

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is weird that discrimination is a four letter word when it is absurd to try to treat everyone equally. But... either we can discriminate based on gender or we can't. If you have an all male team where most members are extremely shy around women (like bad enough they probably should see a therapist), then it would make perfect business sense to only seek another man for that team. But discrimination based on gender…

"discrimination" is a very vague word. Technically all employers practice some kind of discrimination. Applying for a job is an exercise in getting discriminated against (typically for your skills, education and experience). The key here is that discrimination against someone for their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is unethical, no matter what kind of social wrong you aim to right. Giving women more o…

Straw man? Nobody would of course. We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men. Anything less tends to be discrimination, and unethical, right?

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#67

Post by RIMR » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #51

new_corp_dev wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've built our straw effigies from the same bale, mine just happens to burn more cleanly.

What does that even mean? At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society. All the moaning about how no solution is pure enough in some ivory tower way, is beside the point.

>At root, women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce. Something should be done about it, or we just have to admit we don't care that women are marginalized in our society.

Everything isn't so black-and-white. I agree that "women are substantially absent from the most lucrative levels of the workforce". I also agree that we, as a society, are responsible for inciting positive change in this regard.

Regardless, I simply cannot endorse the implementation of sexually discriminatory business practices as a "solution" to the problem.

The root of the problem isn't with hiring managers. The root is that in the fields in which women are most absent, men make up the vast majority of APPLICANTS. Unless we can level the playing field in education, as well as in family structure, we won't see any change in these industries.

If 15% of men enroll in STEM fields in college, while Woman aren't as interested in STEM as men are, and we need to determine if:

1) This is the result of sexism.

2a) If so, where can we incite change to boost the likelihood that women will pursue a career in STEM.

2b) If not, why do we see the disparity that we do, and is it actually ethical to try to "fix" it.

I have no problem with the ends here, just the means. If you want to fight against sexual discrimination, you cannot participate in or encourage it. How's that for black-and-white?

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#68

Post by RIMR » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #66

RIMR wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"discrimination" is a very vague word. Technically all employers practice some kind of discrimination. Applying for a job is an exercise in getting discriminated against (typically for your skills, education and experience). The key here is that discrimination against someone for their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is unethical, no matter what kind of social wrong you aim to right. Giving women more o…

Straw man? Nobody would of course. We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men. Anything less tends to be discrimination, and unethical, right?

You seriously need to learn the difference between constructive contrasting, and fallacious straw-man arguments.

I am telling a true story about an actual boss I had who was using "positive discrimination" in a dubious way. This wasn't some fabricated argument meant to replace yours. I'm contrasting two similar actions, one of which you defend, while the other you condemn - yet you can't articulate why.

>We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men.

Well, if an employer gets 30 male applicants for every female applicant, then by your standard they are now obligated to mass-discriminate against fully-qualified men for no other reason than their gender, while suffering a lack of staffing while they try to find as many technically-qualified women to fill their ranks.

This problem runs much deeper than sexual discrimination by hiring managers (which is actually quite rare). You're trying to put a band-aid on a nonexistent wound.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#69

Post by RIMR » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #48

RIMR wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you made any decisions about Bryana's responsibilities that were motivated by her gender, rather than her personal strengths? Putting your only female dev in the position of representing your company at conferences suggests that she's taken on the role of "token female". If this is coincidental, and she just happens to be the best spoken developer with the least stagefright, then clearly there is no problem. How…

So what? What harm is there in showcasing female workers? There's nothing about being a 'token' that precludes competence.

There's nothing wrong with showcase female workers, as long as you aren't doing so BECAUSE they are female.

Since you are constantly accusing everyone here of the Straw Man fallacy, let me provide you an example of an actual Straw Man argument:

>So what? What harm is there in showcasing female workers? There's nothing about being a 'token' that precludes competence.

Re: On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

#70

Post by jonahrd » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

new_corp_dev wrote: post #58

jonahrd wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if there's a young software engineering student who's inspired by this talk and decides to keep studying against her preconceived notions that this is a "field for men"? Hosting more women speakers at conferences helps to fix the broken stereotype of software engineers all being white dudes, which in turns fixes the problem of fewer women and minorities becoming interested in STEM.

And what if said young software engineering student reads Bryana's blog post and realizes that Bryana may only have been chosen to speak because she is a woman? What sort of inspiration would that be for other women to join STEM? How should anyone view speakers that have been invited to speak based primarily on their race or gender? It would set the whole industry back by decades. Not because women got involved, but…

But this argument rests on the case that Bryana was solely chosen because she's a women, when in reality she was chosen because she had the qualifications (much like some of her other colleagues) and is also a woman who had to overcome more challenges to make it to where she is now. That's a pretty interesting and under-represented vantage point to hear a speech from.

This all relates to the same debate about affirmative action that's been happening since the 60's. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/5/19/bernard-davis-an... This guy (happens to be my grandfather) argued essentially the same point as you: that black students would be accepted to the medical school based on a lowered standard, and end up graduating as less qualified doctors as their white counterparts. This in turn would lead people to have a general mistrust of black doctors, because they would be seen as only being in their place through affirmative action, and not through merit. That is definitely a scenario to avoid, and also definitely one worth considering in debate.

However, this has proven not to be the case, and Harvard is still viewed as ranking among the greatest institutions in the world, even though they have been admitting minorities to their program since the 70's! In fact, here is a more recent Crimson article highlighting some points in defense of promoting people in minority groups: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/11/7/affirmative-acti...

If we want to decrease the gender inequality in STEM, we need to take concrete action and promote the hard work of women and other underrepresented groups in order to slowly shift the male-dominated culture to one that's more diverse.