Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On being a female on a male-dominated engineering team

bryanaknight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

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

#71

Post by chillacy »

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…

I think a lot of disagreement in this thread can be boiled down to Equality vs Justice: http://imgur.com/RD6NDfK

I'm not sure which is the right one to aim for, and it affects not only the women in engineering debate but also things like affirmative action. There are certainly good arguments for both sides.

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

#72

Post by chillacy »

RIMR wrote: post #18
new_corp_dev wrote: post #6

She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak. > This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.…

Agreed, but at least Bryana doesn't have the defeatist attitude that a lot of women in her position develop. Sexism is real, and it shows it's nasty face all the time, but to not let it define you and to refuse to change how you work because of other people's biases is far more empowering than this "every woman is a victim" narrative that gets pushed far too often. But yes, I agree. It is sexist to push her to do thi…

> Any emphasis on sex is sexist. Any emphasis on race is racist. We aren't defined by the color of our skin or what we have between our legs.

I see this attitude not infrequently among pseudo-liberal city crowds. I've heard the claims that we're postracial or past the need for feminism or civil rights activism.

I agree that's how it should be, but it's not. Civil rights was only a generation ago, and america has spent more time mistreating its women and minorities than not. It's delusional to believe that everything is going to be fixed.

The reality is that women do have a tougher time due to various social programming, and minorities do as well in many industries due to stereotypes that we all hold. To pretend like we all have the same advantages in America is a lie, and one that benefits the ones already at the top.

Here's a good test: if gender/religion/etc truly doesn't matter, would you rather be a , , who practices in america, or a straight white anglo man? It shouldn't matter, right?

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

#73

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RIMR wrote: post #69
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Um, we must have different ideas of what that phrase means. "A weak or imaginary opposition, set up to be easily refuted". I'd have had to set up something, for that to be the case. Instead of, just exploring the previous comment's setup.

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

#74

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RIMR wrote: post #68
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Ok, thank you for the perfect straw man, right there in glorious living color. If an employer gets 30 male applicants for every female, then I suppose that fictitious situation would justify discrimination against women.

But there's no reason to assume that is the case. The evidence, in fact, is that women do apply for jobs and are not hired. Blind trials of anonymous resumes show that women would be hired, if only the reader didn't know they were women. That once hired, with nearly identical job histories for men and women, men are complimented for leadership qualities and promoted, while women are criticized for being bossy and demanding, and denied raises and promotion.

Willfully ignoring these well-documented issues is not the same thing as debating. Coming up with one anecdotal case (that 'constructive contrasting') and concluding that nothing should be done because there is no problem, is pretty much classic strawman argument.

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

#75

Post by JoeAltmaier »

programmernews3 wrote: post #53
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard reply is, those industries are among the lowest-paid. And men are among the highest-offenders. So its a straw man. How about, we use instead any of the other 100 industries where men already hold the best-paid positions? We'll just swap 30 or 40 of them, so as not to cause as much pain to all those poor men.

Everything is a straw man for you. Muslims are the highest offenders for terrorism - should we treat them different? How about this - it is very radical and might be hard for someone like you to handle..... How about we allow companies to hire people by merit. I apologise if it is a horrible thing to hear for authoritarian, "diversity officer" supporting, communists.

But hiring is absolutely not done on merit. Its done on 'cultural fit' and that means, hire more guys like us. Women are widely discriminated against, merit notwithstanding. There is a fundamental problem in our industry, and denying it or throwing anecdotes around isn't helping us move forward.

And if 'straw man' offends, then I suggest learning to make other kinds of arguments. I call em as I see em.

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

#76

Post by JoeAltmaier »

RIMR wrote: post #61
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, cherry-picking then. "See, I can come up with one situation that isn't the same as all the rest; thus I refute the general claim" is plain wrong.

Semantic quibbling about 'reverse discrimination' is a standard lame trick used by those in power to justify their continued power. It doesn't fool anybody; its just selfishness.

And really, if you have no idea of the state of employment and the gender gap, what place have you in this discussion at all? Denying the widely published statistics and endemic problems in modern hiring is a species of willful ignorance I find breathtaking.

See, I take care 99 days out of 100 to reply evenhandedly and avoid any reference to others posting here; I try to stick with the topic and illuminate the issue as best I can. But today, I've been driven mad by the sophomoric nonsense.

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

#77

Post by Lawtonfogle »

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…

The whole 'in power' is just a means to justify racism/sexism/etc. Anyone who defends it is defending racism/sexism/etc.
Post reply on HN