zlacker

[parent] [thread] 24 comments
1. civili+(OP)[view] [source] 2017-08-02 22:17:08
Tech is far less sexist and racist than you think it is. This article isn't about tech specifically, but I think it does demonstrate that if anyone, there is positive-sexism [ed: for women] happening when it comes to recruitment in western workplaces. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria...

Right now the demographic make up of companies don't match the population, that's true, but these companies do tend to match the demographics of trained programmers. The difference in demographics is from people choosing not to enter tech. If you want to fix the problem, work on training pipelines into tech.

The best way to summarize our different viewpoints is probably "Wanting Equality of Opportunity vs. wanting Equality of Outcome". And-- you assume that if the outcome of tech-demographics is different than the population, then it must be due to racism/sexism. There are other cultural and socio-economic factors that influence the demographics of tech.

replies(4): >>leesal+A >>brookl+Y8 >>abeisg+v9 >>brookl+Ca
2. leesal+A[view] [source] 2017-08-02 22:23:33
>>civili+(OP)
> positive-sexism

What does that even mean? Isn't all sexism bad?

replies(1): >>civili+a1
◧◩
3. civili+a1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-02 22:29:43
>>leesal+A
Sexism in favor of the people we're talking about. So, mainsteam thought views women as being the oppressed ones, but the study shows that women tend to get hired at a higher rate than men, simply by having a female name.

Another example of positive-racism-- being a white dude visiting China, I got into night clubs without paying. :-/ But cab drivers also consistently added 50-100% onto the fare.

replies(1): >>leesal+13
◧◩◪
4. leesal+13[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-02 22:48:42
>>civili+a1
Maybe it'd be worded better as "reverse sexism"?

Implying that it's "positive" doesn't do any social justice but incites the us vs them, 0 sum game train of thought.

replies(1): >>gjjrfc+la1
5. brookl+Y8[view] [source] 2017-08-02 23:50:42
>>civili+(OP)
not even slightly surprised someone piped in with "tech is far less racist and sexist" than I think it is. Being less of that than I think it is would get an afirmative, supportive response, rather than the knee-jerk denial I have come to expect.
replies(1): >>civili+N9
6. abeisg+v9[view] [source] 2017-08-02 23:55:07
>>civili+(OP)
You're forgetting to account for people who would be starting out in tech then find an environment that's impossible to work in so they leave the field.

These smart, awesome people never get to be "trained programmers" because attitudes like this allow casual, often unintentional behaviors to ruin their days.

Claiming this is a funnel problem is short sighted. We definitely need people in the funnel, but we also need to ensure they have an amazing time as they integrate into tech culture.

replies(1): >>huevin+Nh
◧◩
7. civili+N9[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-02 23:57:33
>>brookl+Y8
Sorry, I just don't see the evidence. I haven't seen it in my personal experience, and I already laid out my take on the demographics.

Is there evidence I'm missing? Besides my willingness to ask for evidence? :]

replies(2): >>brookl+gb >>amcoop+Yi
8. brookl+Ca[view] [source] 2017-08-03 00:05:50
>>civili+(OP)
I don't know what most white people in this country feel, but I can only conclude what they feel from the state of their institutions.--James Baldwin
replies(1): >>huevin+1i
◧◩◪
9. brookl+gb[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 00:13:29
>>civili+N9
so you aren't seeing evidence of institutional racism, sexism, and ageism in tech? Not in your personal experience? When was the last time you reached out to someone in a marginalized group where you work and asked them about it? You might start with that, in fact we could all start right there. And maybe open with empathy and the assumption that their experience of these is true, rather than demanding evidence. I write you now as evidence of these myself, and how do you respond? How does anyone respond in this thread? Is there overwhelming empathy affirmation and support or is there indignant denial of a person's experience?
replies(2): >>civili+Ad >>barrke+ek
◧◩◪◨
10. civili+Ad[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 00:44:06
>>brookl+gb
Nope. I see a lot of support for women and minorities in tech-- both in the form of mentoring events, hiring initiatives, networking events, and general cheerleading. I've talked to a lot of women and minorities in casual friendly drinking contexts, and I haven't heard any horror stories. You're right that I should specifically ask them if they've been on the receiving end of bias, and I'm going to.

Maybe I'm just in test-writing mode, but, if there's a bug, we ought to be able to write a test for it. If there is bias in tech, we ought to be able to see it in data. Maybe we need to look at 1st-job hiring rates? Maybe we need to look at people who drop out of tech after their first year and don't return? But I haven't seen it. I'm not asking you to do this data analysis, I just figured that... there are a lot of people examining this, and it should have been uncovered by now.

How have you experienced racism, sexism or ageism in tech?

◧◩
11. huevin+Nh[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 01:44:17
>>abeisg+v9
The computer science graduation stats are heavily skewed male. It happens way before the company hiring and first job phase so taking punitive actions at the hiring level is idiotic.
◧◩
12. huevin+1i[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 01:46:07
>>brookl+Ca
Presumably your definition of white is the convenient one that includes Asian people, right? Tech hiring has jack all to do with racism when the big companies are matching the ratios coming out of uni with CS degrees.
replies(2): >>runako+1o >>brookl+St
◧◩◪
13. amcoop+Yi[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 01:59:04
>>civili+N9
Let's clarify that 'your take on the demographics' was an article about Australia that was not specific to the tech industry.

Here's a relevant piece from the Los Angeles Times.

'One example: Google's own data showed women were promoted less often than men because workers need to nominate themselves. Women who did so got pushback. Based on her studies, [Joan C.] Williams [law professor, UC Hastings College of the Law] found that women are rewarded for modesty and penalized for what men might see as "aggressive" behavior. Google began including female leaders at workshops to coach everyone — men and women — on how to promote themselves effectively. The gender difference among nominees disappeared, Williams said.'

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-women-tech-20150222-st...

◧◩◪◨
14. barrke+ek[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 02:19:39
>>brookl+gb
FWIW getting into tech as a stereotypical white male is also an uphill struggle. Years of ostracism as a nerd, discrimination in school and early social life. It wasn't a pleasant experience for me and not I expect for many. If anything, computers were a respite from the unpleasantness of social life.
replies(2): >>brookl+Jl >>Powero+5v
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. brookl+Jl[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 02:39:32
>>barrke+ek
That is a true insight into why there is so much bullying (of women, of other men, of people of color, etc) in tech. I can see how that could really be upsetting throughout a life, and how it could engender a kind of constant (justified) anger. But then one would hope we could all realize this and move toward empathy and support the marginalized, each of us having had these experiences ourselves.
replies(1): >>TheSpi+3m
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. TheSpi+3m[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 02:43:18
>>brookl+Jl
> That is a true insight into why there is so much bullying (of women, of other men, of people of color, etc) in tech.

I don't see how that follows from the parent comment. What do you mean by this?

replies(1): >>brookl+Cu
◧◩◪
17. runako+1o[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 03:11:40
>>huevin+1i
Obligatory reminder that tech companies at scale are nowhere near 100% CS grads. In most companies where I've worked (me: CS grad) over the last ~20 years, CS (and related) grads were the distinct minority of overall staff.

The population benchmark for "tech hiring" probably should look more like "college graduates" than "people with CS degrees."

◧◩◪
18. brookl+St[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 04:57:45
>>huevin+1i
That was James Baldwin speaking. I figured he had enough gravitas to present an idea, but even James Baldwin gets pushback on hacker news!
replies(1): >>dang+TB
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
19. brookl+Cu[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 05:12:01
>>TheSpi+3m
If it was a bad experience for him, from which computers were a respite, as he said: i understood that he suffered ostracism, social isolation, bullying, and felt exculded and stressed-- unappreciated-- ridiculed-- called a nerd in the negative sense-- that sort of thing. That is painful. If we have an industry made up of men who experienced this in adolescence or in high dchool or even in college, that would be a lot of pain pushed down and covered up with the usual toughness and lack of empathy - a self-protecting measure in the face of abuse. I can see that it is formative for many people, and can be hard to switch off when one finally ascends to accomplishment, wealth, and power. I get that, and I think people should feel angry and hurt by ill treatment, but then try to reshape it somehow with effort into empathy for others who are being treated worse. I'm not saying it is easy, but as the intellectual elite, i think the industry ought to give it a real try-- set an example in a time when examples of empathy and support are more needed than ever.
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. Powero+5v[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 05:19:57
>>barrke+ek
And sadly this lack of socialization and singular focus on computers is often incorrectly attributed to "being on the spectrum" rather than being what it is, a person who withdrew into themselves and computers as the result of maltreatment by their peers in school.
◧◩◪◨
21. dang+TB[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 07:05:35
>>brookl+St
Would you please stop posting these cheap meta snipes to HN about HN? It's tedious, plus it's incongruent to diss a community while you're participating in it.

If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.

replies(1): >>s73ver+8y1
◧◩◪◨
22. gjjrfc+la1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 14:09:01
>>leesal+13
If it's treating people differently on the basis of their gender then it's probably easier to just call it what it is - sexism. Then you can start justifying why this specific incidence of sexism might be a social good.
replies(1): >>leesal+eq1
◧◩◪◨⬒
23. leesal+eq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 15:56:32
>>gjjrfc+la1
Fair enough!
◧◩◪◨⬒
24. s73ver+8y1[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 16:44:49
>>dang+TB
"plus it's incongruent to diss a community while you're participating in it."

No. Your attitude here is the crappy one. Without being called out, a community will never grow. It's entirely appropriate to call out a community for the issues it has. And yes, the HN community has a HUGE problem with not recognizing sexism and racism in the industry. Far too many are willing to take the, "I don't see it, so it doesn't exist" point of view, which not only means that things won't improve, but means that they will likely get worse, as those who are doing the bad things are noticing that they can get away with it.

If you don't want people to take snipes at your community, maybe you should look at why people are taking snipes at it, and work to be better.

replies(1): >>brookl+J02
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
25. brookl+J02[view] [source] [discussion] 2017-08-03 19:27:28
>>s73ver+8y1
Yes, agreed. A community that says it wants to be about equality and "meritocracy" would welcome the tough critique. Just like an elite athlete or an accomplished artist would welcome true feedback. Those who want to improve and ultimately excel in certain areas welcome vigorous crit., so they can incorporate that into their training and become better for it. We can't have a meritocracy without equality of opportunity; opportunity includes opportunity in every level of education, and yes within the hiring process. We can have the argument about "affirmative action" and how it might disadvantage a deserving white male who might not make it into the top 100 students at a med school because spaces were made for women and people of color, but then we would have to really think about the society we ultimately want to have. At some point, the rampant inequality needs to be aggressively tackled (with joy) and the knowledge that we are improving the system by promoting diversity and equality of opportunity at every level. I can't think of anything less tedious, as a previous commenter had mentioned. If one is actually interested in leveling the playing field, one would find a wealth of information (with a simple internet search)to support the idea that there is such sexism, racism, and ageism in tech. But the interest has to be there. Maybe more productively, one could examine one's own insecurities about why one would not want to support drastic measures that would help us all get closer to equality of opportunity. Because when people don't support rigorous and thoughtful critique in a discussion format, it really makes one wonder why they are so afraid that these ideas might be true.

And to the person who mentioned that my tone might be aggressive or somehow unpleasant: people have been saying that to the marginalized when they yelp in pain for centuries. Of course, no one wants to hear about how and whom they are actually hurting. They would rather those people play nice and exhibit a welcoming tone. I don't recall anyone worrying about their tone with respect to marginalized groups in tech. They rudely shoot them down, for the most part. That is why women leave tech in droves. And it ain't enough for us to shake our tiny fists by "not buying products" or whatever from these companies. (although, feel free to so) I'd rather the community know that there are actual people within their ranks who call bullshit. I'm sure there are the formerly incarcerated (remember Aaron Swartz would have been among these, as would Snowden, and Assange- so let's not forget about those people being considered "criminals" as well- just a reality check) women, people of color, veterans, and people over 35 in tech who read these threads and don't feel comfortable jumping in. I write here for them, hoping that one day, they will feel supported and comfortable speaking out.

[go to top]