1. Getting women in the pipeline from an early age. Whether it's cultural, or women in developed Western economies don't need an escape hatch like in places they face few options --as a country, if we are to progress, we have to find a way to improve the pipeline. Increase the pool of women candidates, and you will not have to work hard at finding good candidates.
2. Google should have not touched the live wire that is a publicly stated policy for PR brownie points. If they meant to improve things, introduce processes without the unnecessary fanfare because, as we now are witnessing, they are being pincered from both sides --which is ultimately counterproductive.
And this is how blatant discrimination goes on. Why is it so important to have women in computer science or STEM? Why can't we leave them alone and let them choose? Is it money? Sure, google/fb and select few pays well. They also ask you to put in 40-50 hours per week. Not all jobs are dev jobs just for your information.
I worked for top 3 out of top 6 companies in the valley. You wouldn't believe amount of discrimination and denial of opportunities men face. Men are not considered at all and not making it to the pipeline itself.
If you are 30+ and male, it's game over in the valley.
I don't think anyone who has worked at the big SValley companies will deny that there is some bias[1] against men --but not out of malice, but rather because they believe that their path to success is signaling they are virtuous. So they have quotas and they have rewards for recommending women candidates and will rather hire a woman from Georgia over a male from California because it will fill a quota for a recruiter.
I get all that.
What I am saying is we need to fill the pipeline with women starting at an early age so there is no need for these artificial practices. Thing is we need more tech workers, in the US --they might as well be American women. It will make us stronger as a people.
[1] So people understand, by bias I don't mean they are out to get men. I mean two pretty equal candidates, the majority of the time the man will be overlooked because he will not help to fill the internal recruiters' quotas.
I would agree with the first option, if people want more women in IT, the only realistic way is to get more in IT schools, recruitment quotas won't change anything about the reality of the field at all. It's just going to make things worse by triggering internal fights because some employees feel left out (already happens it seems). Even if in the hypothetical case where you manage to hire 50% women, you are just reducing the percentage of women everywhere else, it's not that much of an achievement.
There are just as many girls in high school math classes than boys[1], and they tend to do just as well as boys. Most STEM programs also offer scholarships exclusively to women. At what point should we recognize that it just doesn't seem to be a career path women want to take? Should we really coax them to go into careers they don't want en masse?
1. Getting women in the pipeline from an early age. Whether it's cultural, or women in developed Western economies don't need an escape hatch like in places they face few options --as a country, if we are to progress, we have to find a way to improve the pipeline. Increase the pool of women candidates, and you will not have to work hard at finding good candidates.
I've been in relationships with 2 women who could code, but who absolutely didn't want to do that as a job. (They formed these ideas well before they met me.) I also taught 100 level Computer Science courses at University, and encountered many young women with similar attitudes. There is something going on in our culture which makes women not want to code as a job.
Google should have not touched the live wire that is a public policy for PR brownie points.
I suspect that they were invaded by large numbers of employees with an agenda who have what they feel is a moral mandate, who won't take no for an answer, who furthermore feel they are justified in toxic and intellectually stifling behaviors by their moral mandate. People are taught in college and socialized in online groups that it is their moral duty to pursue this agenda and take such actions. Given the scope of the reactions I saw come out of Google during the Damore furor, I think it's basically too late for them. I'd hope to be wrong, but I see little hope.
I don't think Google is wrong for trying to recruit more women. Their problems have to do with how their efforts have manifested in their internal culture in a way which stifles free inquiry and dissent. If it hasn't already happened it's only a matter of time before they succumb to stagnation and only run off of their market position and network effects. Also, as we have seen with other media companies, at some point in their decline, the decline will motivate behaviors which are harmful to society at large. I suspect this process has already begun.
I agree that _recruiting_ is not wrong and arguably the right thing to do. We need to encourage our women to join the men in bringing progress to our society.
I don't agree with the skewed incentives for internal recruiters and the arguably ardent politics that has tagged along with the effort.
I've been in relationships with 2 women who could code, but who absolutely didn't want to do that as a job. (They formed these ideas well before they met me.) I also taught 100 level Computer Science courses at University, and encountered many young women with similar attitudes. There is something going on in our culture which makes women not want to code as a job.
How do you know that what they want is a consequence of our culture? Did they say so?
For example, if they don't want to because it's just not enjoyable or interesting enough, then I think that's okay (provided it's being presented properly). It is okay if a person is not interested in a type of work. It doesn't necessarily imply anything wrong with either.
As someone who thinks that James Damore was unjustly fired and that many people and news media imputed things on him which he did not mean or in fact say -- Let me say that there is something toxic and immoral in the Bay Area tech community. There is something like that in any large enough group of people. If someone is a small enough minority, they can become a target for the very small number of sociopaths. Power does corrupt. There is an element of truth behind both sides of this issue. If it weren't so, it would not be as difficult as it is.
It is okay if a person is not interested in a type of work. It doesn't necessarily imply anything wrong with either.
I agree that is okay. However, I think it's highly likely that not all of the ire I've seen around this issue is an ideological fiction.
We need to encourage both boys and girls at an early age [i.e. we should not discourage either boys or girls]. As these boys and girls grow up into men and women in the workforce, having been side-by-side all through school, I think both, by then men and women, will both find they have a place in the tech workforce.
In the US (and other places) we have people who pursue fame (in acting, singing, etc.) when we know and they know their chances are slim. But we as a society value "celebrity". We celebrate liberal arts. We don't so much celebrate hard sciences. That's part of the problem. We don't need so many cashiers and delivery boys and girls with liberal arts degrees doing nothing in their careers.
We could have many of those people who study liberal arts go into more meaty things --there are better prospects for STEM than for liberal arts graduates.
We set expectations for everyone. Not all expectations are bad expectations. We should set the policies so we're not having a deficit of labor in certain areas when we have an abundance of underutilized resources. If we didn't have a deficit, we wouldn't be seeing the numbers of imported labor in this market.
> If we didn't have a deficit, we wouldn't be seeing the numbers of imported labor in this market.
Everything I've seen and read indicates that we have a deficit only of people willing to work for really poor wages. If that's a population we want to fill with women, we're not doing them any favors.
There is some wage depression with some H1Bs, but there are plenty of other imported labor who are making the same as natives --those could be our women.
I wonder at what point the work is more important? These discussions upto a certain point are helpful when does it start to hurt the competitiveness of company.
May sound odd but I have found working with a bunch of other white folks to be like high school especially in the 20 to 40 age range. While as a white guy working with just about all Indians to the best working environment. Though it is socially lacking due to culture differences there isnt a bunch of insecure back stabbing types .... just ppl that work well together and without judgement.
Also I work in the government sector redesigning and developing govt sites and apps. It's not Google and Facebook but it is Medicare and other names yet ppl aren't banging at their door begging to work there .. so there's also that lack of competition and competition/insecurities brings out the worst in many.
You must have been lucky enough to be working with Indians who were all from the same caste. I've worked as an intermediary to different teams comprised of competing castes because they refused to work with each other.
It's easy to get lucky with small numbers. I was a researcher and I worked alongside teams of hundreds of people, mostly Indians. I was a mentor to a bright young hard working "untouchable" who showed lots of promise. He informed me about the caste system and who was in what caste. Sadly once I left the company the other teams who would work with me ended up shunning him and driving him out of the company. I got him a job at Facebook and he's happy there so at least that worked out.
Since you appear to be posting from a throwaway, care to share which company this was at? Having worked with plenty of Indians (and being Indian myself) I don't recall caste ever being a factor in anything at any company I've ever worked at. I'm not so closed-minded as to say it's impossible but it would be useful to get more information and context. At the very least so we know which companies have toxic cultures like this.
Interesting.. I've come to a similar conclusion with my team. A majority of the team is white men but there are immigrants from SE Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, India) other minorities (Black American [I'm one], African, & women). I generally find the immigrants / minorities more interesting to talk to.. especially when it comes to their thoughts on American culture. The white guys seem to be very similar and outside of work seem to love to talk about the same topics: beer, video games, 80s culture, etc.
Listening to my wife talk about her workday, it strikes me how much tougher the women are at her Chinese dominated company are, in contrast to how it seems at the average Bay Area tech company. At the same time, there is no tension in the workplace concerning gender politics, and men seem to be much more relaxed about that. There is no anxiety over hiring more women. What's more, their work environment is absolutely not PC.
From what I've seen, in my work experience, everything works better when no one thinks of themselves as a victim, and everyone is expected to be a tough, competent adult who can speak up for themselves. It's the opposite of that which causes problems.
You are mixing up race and culture. Being white or brown doesn't cause certain behaviors or interaction patterns, but being Californian/American/Indian really does.
What you are saying is that you prefer working with Indians because of their different culture, not that white 20-40 year olds are all like high-schoolers. The latter is racist.
No racist would be I hate my current co-workers because of their race/culture. But that's not the case I really enjoy working with them because of their different culture vs. a culture where everyone is desperately trying to fit in, be liked and outshine each other.
So I am racist for sure against terrible, high school and unnecessarily stressful work environments like what were reading how Google is.
Having preferences of the cultures you work with isn't racist. Making assumptions based the color of their skin is racist. "I have found working with a bunch of other white folks to be like high school especially in the 20 to 40 age range" is a racist phrase.
Frame it with another race. "I have found working with a bunch of other black folks to be like high school especially in the 20 to 40 age range" would be met with derision and backlash.
It's also the same company that pushes out a "do no evil" narrative while throwing their AI on top of predator drones so middle grounds are a bit tough for them.
29 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] thread1. Getting women in the pipeline from an early age. Whether it's cultural, or women in developed Western economies don't need an escape hatch like in places they face few options --as a country, if we are to progress, we have to find a way to improve the pipeline. Increase the pool of women candidates, and you will not have to work hard at finding good candidates.
2. Google should have not touched the live wire that is a publicly stated policy for PR brownie points. If they meant to improve things, introduce processes without the unnecessary fanfare because, as we now are witnessing, they are being pincered from both sides --which is ultimately counterproductive.
I worked for top 3 out of top 6 companies in the valley. You wouldn't believe amount of discrimination and denial of opportunities men face. Men are not considered at all and not making it to the pipeline itself. If you are 30+ and male, it's game over in the valley.
I get all that.
What I am saying is we need to fill the pipeline with women starting at an early age so there is no need for these artificial practices. Thing is we need more tech workers, in the US --they might as well be American women. It will make us stronger as a people.
[1] So people understand, by bias I don't mean they are out to get men. I mean two pretty equal candidates, the majority of the time the man will be overlooked because he will not help to fill the internal recruiters' quotas.
[1] https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-s...
I've been in relationships with 2 women who could code, but who absolutely didn't want to do that as a job. (They formed these ideas well before they met me.) I also taught 100 level Computer Science courses at University, and encountered many young women with similar attitudes. There is something going on in our culture which makes women not want to code as a job.
Liana K covered some of this in an even handed way, even as the fury was still running hot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRvtA2JIIA
Google should have not touched the live wire that is a public policy for PR brownie points.
I suspect that they were invaded by large numbers of employees with an agenda who have what they feel is a moral mandate, who won't take no for an answer, who furthermore feel they are justified in toxic and intellectually stifling behaviors by their moral mandate. People are taught in college and socialized in online groups that it is their moral duty to pursue this agenda and take such actions. Given the scope of the reactions I saw come out of Google during the Damore furor, I think it's basically too late for them. I'd hope to be wrong, but I see little hope.
I don't think Google is wrong for trying to recruit more women. Their problems have to do with how their efforts have manifested in their internal culture in a way which stifles free inquiry and dissent. If it hasn't already happened it's only a matter of time before they succumb to stagnation and only run off of their market position and network effects. Also, as we have seen with other media companies, at some point in their decline, the decline will motivate behaviors which are harmful to society at large. I suspect this process has already begun.
I don't agree with the skewed incentives for internal recruiters and the arguably ardent politics that has tagged along with the effort.
Do they as a hobby, or have they turned their backs on it entirely?
How do you know that what they want is a consequence of our culture? Did they say so?
For example, if they don't want to because it's just not enjoyable or interesting enough, then I think that's okay (provided it's being presented properly). It is okay if a person is not interested in a type of work. It doesn't necessarily imply anything wrong with either.
Liana K makes the case for this side of the issue very well. The 30k foot version: Note that programmer used to be a preferred occupation for women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRvtA2JIIA
As someone who thinks that James Damore was unjustly fired and that many people and news media imputed things on him which he did not mean or in fact say -- Let me say that there is something toxic and immoral in the Bay Area tech community. There is something like that in any large enough group of people. If someone is a small enough minority, they can become a target for the very small number of sociopaths. Power does corrupt. There is an element of truth behind both sides of this issue. If it weren't so, it would not be as difficult as it is.
It is okay if a person is not interested in a type of work. It doesn't necessarily imply anything wrong with either.
I agree that is okay. However, I think it's highly likely that not all of the ire I've seen around this issue is an ideological fiction.
We need to encourage both boys and girls at an early age [i.e. we should not discourage either boys or girls]. As these boys and girls grow up into men and women in the workforce, having been side-by-side all through school, I think both, by then men and women, will both find they have a place in the tech workforce.
In the US (and other places) we have people who pursue fame (in acting, singing, etc.) when we know and they know their chances are slim. But we as a society value "celebrity". We celebrate liberal arts. We don't so much celebrate hard sciences. That's part of the problem. We don't need so many cashiers and delivery boys and girls with liberal arts degrees doing nothing in their careers.
We could have many of those people who study liberal arts go into more meaty things --there are better prospects for STEM than for liberal arts graduates.
How is this any different from a culture which pushes women away from STEM? In either case, we're pushing our expectations upon those girls.
> If we didn't have a deficit, we wouldn't be seeing the numbers of imported labor in this market.
Everything I've seen and read indicates that we have a deficit only of people willing to work for really poor wages. If that's a population we want to fill with women, we're not doing them any favors.
Also I work in the government sector redesigning and developing govt sites and apps. It's not Google and Facebook but it is Medicare and other names yet ppl aren't banging at their door begging to work there .. so there's also that lack of competition and competition/insecurities brings out the worst in many.
From what I've seen, in my work experience, everything works better when no one thinks of themselves as a victim, and everyone is expected to be a tough, competent adult who can speak up for themselves. It's the opposite of that which causes problems.
What you are saying is that you prefer working with Indians because of their different culture, not that white 20-40 year olds are all like high-schoolers. The latter is racist.
So I am racist for sure against terrible, high school and unnecessarily stressful work environments like what were reading how Google is.
Frame it with another race. "I have found working with a bunch of other black folks to be like high school especially in the 20 to 40 age range" would be met with derision and backlash.