This is a really great set of analogies that pokes holes in a lot of arguments you often see. There is another one I'd like to add that's very relevant for tech: women come into the lobby of the engineering school building, see the pack of men on the up escalator, see the room full of men who have already made it, and head straight back out the door and over to the med school or law school building, where they don't have to deal with the headwinds that come from being a minority. A lot of the women who see the situation and leave are the most talented and ambitious, because lets face it: if you're gunning for the top, isn't it rational to give yourself the best possible shot by choosing a field where you won't have the challenge of fitting into a male-dominated culture in addition to all the challenges you'll already have?
Yes, in the middle of the 20th century almost no doctors or lawyers were women (just a few %). The change in the status quo did not happen by magic. The respective professions made a concerted effort to address the historical disparity, and did so simply by hiring/admitting more women. Eventually, the fields stopped being so blatantly male dominated and the new ratios were "sticky." Today, law schools and med schools don't have to consciously try to hire women--their pool of qualified applicants just breaks down evenly.
But tech is too idealistic/libertarian to do something like that. They'll continue to complain and be criticized for the representation of women in the field, even though at this point I think it mostly comes down to a self-perpetuating equilibrium: women self-select out of the field simply because their representation is low in the field and very few people want to bring upon themselves the challenges of being a minority.
To be fair to people in tech, I think the field also selects for people who are less socially aware.
For example, I got all my early programming experience because hiding out in my dad's basement soaking up the glow of green phosphor was infinitely more pleasant than dealing with high-school society. Not because that was beneath me, although that's what I surely told myself at the time, but because I was terrible at it.
It took me years to catch up with my peer group as far as social skills went. Until then, I literally could not perceive a lot of the subtle interactions that demonstrate (and perpetuate) this problem.
I think that's where a lot of the field is. And, in some sense, where they want to be. It's really uncomfortable recognizing that some of what you thought was personal achievement is due to shit that shouldn't matter. It was for me, anyhow. And is, really; it's an ongoing process.
" if you're gunning for the top, isn't it rational to give yourself the best possible shot by choosing a field where you won't have the challenge of fitting into a male-dominated culture in addition to all the challenges you'll already have?"
But you won't end up in the top, right? You'll end up somewhat high in a different spot--which is fine, but then you can't complain about not getting the top spot having voluntarily given up the chance to pursue it.
And I don't understand why one gives up the right to complain about a rigged game simply because one declines to play the game.
For example, I know people who won't work at Google because they think the promotions system there is a terrible one. They can still complain about it, even though they chose to work elsewhere, because it's something that's keeping them from working at Google.
True, but the risk weighted return is quite good, at least for now. You won't make a billion dollars as a doctor, but your odds of pulling in $350k/year for 40 years is probably better than your odds of a $3-5m exit (two outcomes with similar present values), at least if you have the personality of a typical doctor.
>if you're gunning for the top, isn't it rational to give yourself the best possible shot by choosing a field where >you won't have the challenge of fitting into a male-dominated culture in addition to all the challenges you'll already have?
No. If you are ambitious and confident in your abilities you will take on any challenges on the way to your goal, not take the easy way out by avoiding competition. That is what successful people (including successful women) actually do.
It's not a matter of "taking the easy way out." It's a matter of strategically setting yourself up for success. If you're an entrepreneur, do you start a Facebook competitor or a company targeting an underserved B2B niche? Smart people don't sabotage themselves by taking on additional challenges without some compensating upside.
> If you're an entrepreneur, do you start a Facebook competitor or a company targeting an underserved B2B niche?
You go where the money is. That is also where the competition is. There is also the high risk, but potentially lucrative option of creating a new market where none existed before.
Or you can play it safe. Lower risk, lower reward.
I was hoping that they would complete the analogy. I was unable to make these connections: (please fill in!)
1. What is the reason the women's escalator goes down?
2. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?
3. What is the elevator?
4. Why not just make everyone take the elevator? Why have a restricted running arrangement at all? Why not just have organized one-at-a-time races on a 100m track with a photo finish setup?
I had the same questions after reading the article. While I feel this helps paint a pretty picture of what's going on it doesn't seem to even attempt to answer the more important question of why its happening? For example, are the people at the top controlling the direction of the escalators or is it just because it's always been a male dominated industry and has strong momentum in that direction? For example the simple fact that the industry is currently male dominant could be a factor in determining the direction of the escalator. Simply being a majority male may be off-putting to women trying to enter the tech industry, however i'm not sure if/how you would go about fairly solving that. I'm also curious about how this problem relates to other sciences, for example did/do chemistry or physics have/had the same problem at some point and how did they overcome it if they did.
Most software companies in silicone valley. There are parts of the world that are not California and in which the hunger for talent is less severe.
Companies don't have problem hiring - if they had they would have just hire people directly in other countries without all the H1B quotas bullshit. There is nothing you cannot do remotely by VPN and some collaborative tools. I have worked 6 years with half my team in Moscow. It worked wonders. When we had heated discussions we just closed skype instead of beating each other if we were in the same room.
They have problem hiring local talent to warm the chairs.
The other thing I'm confused about- the article seems to imply men who do nothing will be rewarded with things simply by virtue of being men. Does this happen? I've never seen anyone say, "Oh, you're a man! Here, let me give you things!"
This is a real thing in certain areas, it is called gender bias. Keep in mind that gender bias doesn't guarantee favorable treatment for every member of a gender.
I don't think he's suggesting that these things have not been in the favor of men in the past. He's saying that men are just not handed out things because they're men. My question to you is why should the men of today be penalized for actions of men in the past?
Because they are benefiting from those past actions.
And note that a penalty that offsets an unearned benefit is, from some angles, no penalty at all.
The expectation that everything should be fair from my perspective is something that I have because I'm a straight, white, upper-middle-class male. I get to assume that it's all about me, because it so often is. People from less privileged backgrounds don't expect that nearly as much.
Consider European genocide of Native Americans. Suppose they all had been wiped out. Or consider German genocide of Jews, with the same hypothetical. I think the "sins of thy father" question is: Should the descendants of the criminals be punished for the crimes of their ancestors?
My answer to this is "no". And I think bringing it up in this context mainly confuses things.
I think the question of privilege is about present-day social inequities. If the question is, "Should we work to make society fair to everybody, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other irrelevant factor?" There, my answer is a firm "yes".
Will that involve people with unearned privilege giving up that privilege? Sure. But that's not a punishment for being among one of the privileged groups, no matter how much it feels like it.
You're trying to put words in my mouth. My point is, nobody gave men possessions, or land, or people, or a business for virtue of them being men. Maybe it was easier for a man to own land or run a business, but he still had to work for them. Whereas our metaphorical escalator gives good things to its riders, whether they do anything or not.
So, mostly point being, I think the escalator is a flawed analogy.
I frequently get good things because I'm a man. For example, I find it much easier to get people to listen to me than do equally competent female colleagues.
> Whereas our metaphorical escalator gives good things to its riders, whether they do anything or not.
That's not what the author says:
> There are also some men who are just standing on the escalator, simply letting the luck of the draw propel them up. Most of these men won’t make it to the room.
The limited number of spots in the tech world is the biggest flaw in the analogy. Life is not a zero sum game. You can create a new business and create great value for yourself without others "losing". The flawed analogy makes it difficult to follow the arguments being made.
I kept asking myself similar questions while reading this article.
I also asked myself, what does it mean to say "Men should give up their privilege"? I'm not saying men aren't privileged, but at least spell out what that privilege is before embarking on a confusing metaphor that doesn't actually explain a whole lot.
This is a discussion that has been going on for decades. An author is not obligated to do "My Subject 101" at the beginning of every article. You would never complain that somebody writing in a science journal didn't explain what these "atom" things are at the beginning.
Nobody is obligated to do anything, but if they want their argument to be widely understood, which it's obvious (at least from these comments) that it's not, it's helpful to at least explain your premise.
Are you seriously making the argument that all blog posts should start with basic definitions of terms for people who are too lazy to use Google?
And on this particular topic, it's reasonable to suspect that the people who have the "please spoon-feed me the basics" objection would just have a different objection.
For example, despite being provided a good starting point, you didn't say something like, "Thanks, now I'll go do my homework." Or, "Ah, now I understand." You just continued grumbling. And from an account fresh-created to comment on this topic.
1. Because of institutional sexism. Things that exist that discourage or push women off the path to working in technology.
2. It's not that only men can ride it, it's that it's already full men, which is the current situation. Most people trying to get jobs in the technology area are men.
3. The elevator would be policies that help women in the technology areas. Be it affirmative action, or programs designed to help women in the area.
4. Because if you allow everyone in the elevator it would be full of men once again, and a line would form, with the same situation that it's happening in the escalator. If you could manage to make a line where people all queue correctly, and cancel both escalators, you would lose the current situation where people more skilled get to the second floor first.
I thought it was pretty clear. Did I manage to explain it better?
It's still arguing for special privilege.
"and a line would form"... so?
"It's not that only men can ride it, it's that it's already full men, which is the current situation. Most people trying to get jobs in the technology area are men."
I'm not seeing anything here that changes that situation, merely provides a "free pass" to the few women who are interested in technology. This is just affirmative action applied to sexism.
Point 1, is the only legitimate issue I see here, but I'm not seeing any suggestions on how to fix it, and no, handing someone a free pass just because they happen to be the right sex or race isn't the answer, it's just as bad as the problem it's supposed to be addressing.
I share your suspicion of affirmative action as a solution. But I definitely don't think it's as bad as the problem.
As a straight white male, I've already received a number of unearned bonuses. If I fail to receive another dose of privilege, that is definitely not as bad as somebody who's been unfairly penalized receiving another penalty.
Even in the case where I'm improperly penalized so as to give a bonus to somebody who has less privilege, I don't think that's as bad as the reverse. I've still got my lifetime history of privilege; although it feels locally unfair to me, I don't think it's globally unfair.
I was encouraged from an early age in math and science. I was given computer-ish toys (Big Trak represent!) and, later, computers. When I went with my dad to work and played around with their computing gear, nobody said that wasn't something boys should do. In my computer classes, everybody looked just like me. Nobody ever told me that I was good at these things "for a boy". Nobody suggested I should be spending my time on dolls, or make-up, or being appealing to boys. Nobody told me I should pick a college based on how many well-off men there were there. Nobody ever asked me to make them coffee because they thought I was the receptionist. Nobody ever told me I was too pretty to be a programmer. People listen to me more easily than my female colleagues.
And a zillion more, just for being a guy. Being white is a whole other set of things. As is being straight in a heteronormative society.
If you're really interested, these are some good starting points on examining and acknowledging one's privilege:
Sure, but what would have other people said? At least for the ones I visited, those environments were pretty gender-imbalanced. The guys did the smart work. Women did clerical work. Would you have internalized it?
Would a secretary have tried to get you to play with dolls? Would one of the programmers have told you that you'd make a fine keypunch girl? Would an aunt have told your parents that you should be doing something more appropriate?
Even now, kids get a ton of gender policing. Back then, there was a lot more of it. And one of my privileges is that my technical interests happened to match my gender role.
There's a whole row of elevators. Some slowly head upwards, some downwards, some don't move at all - however, elevators can change speed or direction at any time. More often than not the change is in the downwards direction. Some of the faster-moving upwards elevators have velvet ropes or guards blocking them. It's hard to tell, because you can't really see more than one or two elevators at a time, and the guards are inconsistent, but it seems that to get onto the upward-moving elevators it helps to be straight, white and male. But to get on the really fast moving upwards elevators it's more helpful to be rich, well-educated, socially polished, and connected.
Complicating the picture is the shit cannons. Patrolling the top of the elevators are grinning guys in suits holding super-soakers filled with raw sewage. They blast the climbers at random. A few climbers make it to the top from their own efforts, fortunately avoiding any shit. They believe their success was down to hard work - onlookers say that they merely got lucky. What they really mean is that they weren't unlucky enough to be blasted in the chest with enough shit to send them back down to the bottom. Some people get blasted with a weaker, endurable stream of shit - these people often say that shit sucks but that you just have to deal with it. If you thought that it was grossly unfair that some people had access to the super high speed escalators, keep in mind that these escalators also feature the most brutal and indiscriminate shit cannons. A lot of the shit guards intentionally target women, though a few intentionally leave women alone. Others have other prejudices. It's pretty arbitrary.
Sometimes an entire escalator collapses. Everyone falls to the bottom and has to start again. Except the guys at the top, they're safe.
It's generally agreed that in the past, many more escalators moved upwards. With a few exceptions, a lot of escalators have collapsed or starting moving downwards in recent years. Still, everyone agrees that they're luckier than the guys born far away, who have to fight desperately just to get access to the least desirable escalators.
> OP simply assumes what she wants to prove (men have a steady rise to the top).
The author is pretty clear that she isn't trying to prove that men have a steady rise to the top. From the first paragraph she sets out to explain why criticisms like "Why do women try to get ahead by pulling men down?" are incorrect.
Perhaps the author was using it as a demonstration of how easy it is to overlook the direction of your own escalator, being that she certainly has an advantage over some minorities because of her ethnicity.
The article is about the difficultly of breaking in the tech industry as a woman vs a man. I'm not sure how the mention of 'white men' adds to this argument.
Because intersectionality[1] is something that needs to be acknowledged.
Given the target audience, the proper paragraph about the flaws of the model and how it doesn't address intersectional issues probably wouldn't have gone down well. This small comment, however, ensured that at least some mention was made.
[1] Intersectionality is the idea that different combinations of minority issues will have their own, often unique, challenges. In the video games difficulty setting analogy, think of intersectionality being the advanced mode with lots of little sliders for different things, rather than one scale of easy to hard.
First let me start by saying that I believe my wife can do absolutely anything she sets her mind to accomplishing. She has her masters degree while I do not even have a bachelors.
However, these articles ignore the obvious difference between men and women. I (a guy) am interested in cars, computer games(FPS), working out, running, playing sports etc. My wife on the other hand is absolutely interested in all of those at a different level than I an interested in other things that I do not particularly enjoy like horseback riding. When I say she's interested in cars, she's interested in having a nice corvette, while I'm interested in working on a nice corvette. She likes working out, to be fit - I like working out to get stronger and more 'manly'. She loves to play sports because they're fun - I like to crush the other team.
I bring these things up because there are inherent differences between men and women that people seem to forget. It's not just nurture, but it's nature too. We are physically, mentally and emotionally different (not in all cases, but many).
I would love to see more women in the tech industry (I'm trying to get my wife involved). However, there will always be a difference in our mentalities because of our gender and these cannot be ignored so easily.
I'm with you until you get to nature vs. nurture. Societal norms are so ingrained in early childhood education that it's extremely difficult to discern one from the other.
So, while we currently have different interests between the genders (speaking broadly), there's a good chance it's mostly nurture, which means that different attitudes early on could change that in the future.
Societal norms are so ingrained in early childhood education that it's extremely difficult to discern one from the other. -Agreed
I think there is a possibility that nurture does play a lot into the equation (I played sports growing up, while my wife went to 'lady' classes). My point with the nature vs nurture (and i can't prove it, merely speculate) is that testosterone/estrogen levels in each gender should not be ignored.
as somebody who saw ugly side of human nature (war) I can guarantee you that social norms are way weaker than any aspect of human nature. I wish it is different but I have rather big statistical sample to draw upon
While this isn't the whole story, it's important to understand what may be attributed to innate differences and what may be attributed to cultural forces.
And yet, in many cases, nature prevails over nurture.
For example, adultery is severely frowned upon (and in many cases punished) by most cultures today. That doesn't stop many people from cheating on their spouses whenever they feel like it.
Here's the problem with that line of argument. What makes programming a masculine field?
Today, 50% of people who get degrees in law, medicine, or accounting are women (up from basically nil in the middle of the 20th century). Is there anything more "masculine" about looking through a hex dump to debug a program than there is about poring through Excel spreadsheets to tie a deduction to an expenditure? It's all dry, analytical detail work at the end of the day. If anything, going by the usual stereotypes, programming is more suited to women--it requires a lot of patience and involves a creative aspect.
Is it a matter of mathematical ability? Possibly, but that doesn't explain the disparities you see. The differential between men and women among people with perfect SAT Math scores is 65:35. At the 700 level, its 60:40. Even if math skills are the most important thing, they don't explain the gender disparity among programmers (though it might explain the gender disparity among Fields medalists). If ~40% of all engineers were women, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not trying to say programming in it's nature is a 'masculine' thing but the things that draw people to programming tend to be things men seem to enjoy more. There are industries that tend to draw men and there are industries that tend to draw in women (but not exclusively with either).
The article suggests that women are not 'doing well' in the tech industry because men are holding them back while completely ignoring that fact that many, many more men that are interested in tech, than women. Many women are just not interested in the field and never even make it to the scenario the author suggested.
My point is that there is nothing about programming that should make it more appealing to men versus women, given that a very similar field, accounting, has an equal representation of men and women.
Because accounting and law has an fairly even split between men and women then every other field (where physical differences don't come into play) "should" have similar representations too? Are male hairdressers trying twice as hard as their female counterparts to get to the same place? There is nothing about styling and cutting hair that should make it more appealing to women versus men. And yet we see huge imbalances there.
> Because accounting and law has an fairly even split between men and women then every other field (where physical differences don't come into play) "should" have similar representations too?
No, but when fields that are very similar in terms of intellectual demands have dramatically different gender representations, there is reason to be suspicious about what is really driving the disparity.
A good example is teaching. There is no reason teaching should be more attractive to women than men, yet in the U.S. most teachers are women. But this disparity is entirely cultural--in some countries there is not only no stigma against male teachers, but a preference for them. Isn't it valid to ask why social structure is keeping men out of a solid, socially useful career?
Men are about five times more likely to have autism than women, and are also much more likely to have autistic tendencies (mild autism, aspergers, whatever DSM wants to call it).
It seems to be accepted that these characteristics are beneficial for coding.
So why wouldn't a 50/50 split in CS be evidence of discrimination against men?
This is a biotruth argument. It is a post hoc rationalization of society and its institutions to say that existing inequalities and problems are justified via biology. Not only does this argument depend on stereotype definitions of men and women that are useless, it also serves to deflect criticism of actual problems with sexism ("It's just nature!").
To be frank, I don't understand your comment. Even if there is an "obvious difference between men and women," it is clear that there are still social pressures [1] and other problems making it harder for women to get jobs in technical fields — and these are what the article is about, not whether or not women and men have "different mentalities." Even if women are fundamentally less inclined to work in technology, issues of harassment and women being ignored simply for being women are still a problem.
You say "I bring these things up because there are inherent differences between men and women that people seem to forget," but the fact is, differences between men and women (true or not) are emphasized all the time. This holds true for toy advertising [2], discussion of career options [3], or political speech [4]. The idea that men and women are different is hardly forgotten — it's ubiquitous.
I think the question of whether differences really exist is too much to address in one comment and probably off-topic [5]. But I suggest that you consider the possibility that "there will always be a difference in our mentalities because of our gender" is, in fact, part of the problem.
This is just one characteristic that varies by sex of a great many. By saying "even if" there are differences you are ignoring objective reality that there are such differences.
My experience throughout my entire career is that the many females I have worked with could have done anything with their lives, perhaps law or medicine, but chose software engineering/design. I was in school before the Internet bubble popped, and there were tons of women in my courses because there was a ton of money to be made. That precipitously dropped off after the crash.
The majority of men I have worked with, when asked, can't see themselves doing anything else. I have met exactly one woman in my life who has said anything like this to me.
The best programmer I ever knew was an Indian woman. I worked with her for six years. She became pregnant and was a stay-at-home mother for a few years, no doubt in my mind she gave that 100% too. Now she is doing something related to the legal profession and is doing quite well. It is the industry's loss, and will probably be chalked up to sexism when it is included in aggregate numbers. But in the end I believe it's because she had a wide array of options for conventional salary work, and chose something that gave her more money and more social prestige.
One of the obvious problems with this argument is that it has been made for every field ever. It has been proven wrong a lot of times. The people making it in those cases were just fooling themselves into believing an answer that was very convenient for them.
Note also the equivalent argument for race was used enthusiastically to justify slavery in the US. If you'd like to see it in action, go read the Cornerstone Speech, or the Texas Declaration of Secession.
You could be right that this time it is actually valid, but I think the burden of proof is on you. And given the company you're keeping with that style of rhetoric, I'd encourage you to set a pretty high bar.
all I got from article is implication that somehow women are less skilled (slower in article) otherwise they would be on up escalator as well? I certainly don't agree with that implication.
If you are a white male you have built in nitro in your car while driving the streets of life. The women are as skilled but you just got the edge. You won't be dismissed after and interview with "girls cannot use oscilloscope". It will be more like my first interview "Self thought C programmer at age 16 - you are hired, don't know what EEPROM is - no worries kid - we will teach you"
I understand that lots of people discriminates by gender,age,you name it and I don't agree with that. Where I am coming from population was (at time of my childhood) 98% white so no advantage being white :-)
My high school year had 6 girls and over 200 boy because it was technical school and girls didn't choose to attend , other high schools (medical for example) would have reverse ratio and some would actually be close to 50:50 split. That would later translate in similar ratios at university.
I wouldn't dare to say that technical aptitude is ingrained in male population but sure sometimes seems like that.
No, the author explicitly states that the escalator is separated by gender specifically, not by speed:
> The escalator moving up is full of men. There is no room for women on this escalator.
The implication is that the men and women in the analogy both have the same average speed on their own. The men, purely by virtue of being male, then get a positive bonus applied to their speed by the up escalator. The woman get a negative speed penalty from the down escalator.
A lot of men (and sometimes women) ... [say] “So you’re saying that in order for women to get ahead, they have to pull men down?! That’s not fair!”
I have never heard anyone say anything like this quote. Maybe I'm in an unusual workplaces, or I haven't been listening closely enough. Does this resemble a real statement in the gender inequality dialog?
This is indeed a thing people say. Most of the time I hear this in someone saying outright that feminists are man haters or wish to see men suffer. More subtly, someone will usually complain that we have to treat men and woman equally while completely ignoring any kind of ongoing injustice that women may be dealing with (this goes for a wide variety of discussions).
I'd agree that the claim "feminists wish to see men suffer" is equivalent to the above quote. I'm surprised to hear that this is a common sentiment in serious conversation.
The claim "women and men should be treated equally", even with an ignorance of any ongoing injustices towards women, does not seem equivalent to the above quote.
For example, the quote in question implies a zero-sum game, whereby advancing capable women inherently hurts men. This assumption is absent from "men and women should be treated equally."
I have an anecdote to share - the university in which I was supposed to study CS before coming to my senses and realizing I know more than the tutors had strict 50/50 gender admission policy. The acceptance was based purely on exam results (only math). So that friend of mine (a girl) is ranked among the top - no surprises there. After she is accepted she decides she prefers to study electronics and according to rules the first girl that was left out gets the place. The problem is there are 18 with one and the same score - so they accept them all.
What was curious was that the average acceptance score of the admitted girls was higher than for the boys. So the gender policy actually ended discriminating the girls - fewer were admitted than would have been if gender quotas were lifted. That was across the board in all engineering specialties and a few years in a row.
"Such marriages are still relatively rare, though, even if their share is growing. Of all married couples, 24 percent include a wife who earns more, versus 6.2 percent in 1960."
"Demographically and socioeconomically, single mothers and married mothers are different from each others. The median family income for single mothers — who are disproportionately younger, black or Hispanic, and less educated — is $23,000. The median household income for married women who earn more than their husbands — more often white, slightly older and college-educated — is $80,000."
I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make, but it sounds like sexism along with classism and racism still have an impact on women's lives.
I mostly like the article, but the author and I have a different perspective on a basic assumption that is taken as axiomatic in the third paragraph: Let’s say that all the jobs in tech are in a room on the second floor of a building. There are a limited number of people that can fit in that room.
I don't personally believe there are a fixed number of spots. I believe that when you find a way to cram more people into the second floor, it expands.
A company may seem like it is only hiring five engineers today, but companies that hire good people, grow. Companies operating in an environment where more people are working, can sell more of their products and services.
Overall, more people being more productive expands the number of "spots on the second floor" for everyone.
Thus, I do not consider this an issue of choosing which people make it up the escalator, but rather a problem in trying to grow the size of the building. When looked at it in terms of growing the size of the building, we arrive at a completely different view of how we should handle escalators and the purpose of getting people to the second floor.
That seems orthogonal to me. Say I have a list and I'm taking some number of items off one end. I want to maximize the value of that chunk. A larger chunk is better, of course, but sorting the list so that bigger items are on one also helps.
That's what the author is arguing: we're incorrectly ranking people because of a gender bias. Having a larger pool of poorly ranked people won't solve that.
I don't follow what you're saying about a list, but if you're saying that either or both help, the key thing to remember is that it isn't a dichotomy. In the context of HN, what startup isn't trying to hire all the smart and capable people it can?
If it comes down to two people, and there is a perception that A is better than B but both A and B are excellent candidates, a great company hires both.
Right, but by saying "comes down to two people" that implies you've already done some filtering: you've ordered the set of all possible people and then taken the first two.
My point is that if the ordering relation is wrong (which is what the article suggests) then it doesn't matter what subset you take: you're still not getting the best possible set of people. You have to get the right people. If your ordering is off, being more inclusive lets in as many more bad candidates as it does good ones.
This is a horrible analogy. It sounds really pretty at first glance, but the question is never addressed as to why that's the situation to begin with. In real life, everybody can equally use an escalator. Does the up escalator have a sign saying "Men only?" No. Are men pushing women down? No. What is preventing women from using the up escalator?
Maybe the real question is why her analogous women are looking for elevators and going up the wrong escalator instead of just doing it the way everyone else is?
> Does the up escalator have a sign saying "Men only?" No. Are men pushing women down? No.
In terms of the analogy, yes men are pushing women down and the escalator is men only, whether explicitly stated or implicitly understood. This analogy is overstretched though, a lot of the discrimination people face is institutional in nature.
From what I've seen, men who actually push women down get thrown off the escalator, so to speak. I don't think men are actually pushing women down. Crowding them out, maybe, but not pushing them down. Of course I'm not in SV, so who know what brogrammer stuff goes on there.
The main problem with the analogy is that it presumes its own conclusions. This isn't usually a big problem for analogies since they're not supposed to be the core of an argument, but in this case the full post is one big analogy, so it doesn't really hold up.
"It's important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy." - Elon Musk.
the author should have stated the first principles that are fundamentally true and then state her hypothesis of the employment market and justify them. she makes far too much assumptions without justifying them.
Interesting metaphor, but the author could've substituted "women" with "blacks", "hispanics", or any non-white male demographic and the article would've had the same effect.
Look, as a black male startup founder I recognize I face a steeper uphill battle than my white counterparts. I get that. But I also understand that anytime anyone tries to break into an industry dominated by people unlike them, they're going to face resistance.
For example, white rappers have a far more difficult time breaking into hip hop. Its almost a requirement that their talent surpasses that of black rappers by leaps and bounds. They diligently practice their craft, writing witty punchlines and metaphors, using complex wordplay, (i.e. running up the 'down' elevator) while many black rappers lazily write nursery rhymes about the same tired subjects, (i.e. standing still on the 'up' elevator). I'm certain there are many white guys who get to the lobby, and upon seeing a sea of blacks riding the 'up' elevator, simply say, "Forget this, I'm gonna go learn some Python"
The fact is when you're a minority of any kind, (and I don't mean in terms of race, I mean in terms of any characteristic that makes you outside the majority) you should be prepared to fight for every inch.
Besides, when faced with the choice, I usually choose to take the stairs anyway. :-)
I think this is the best analogy, much better than the OP. It's really a question of who your audience is, and whether or not they will understand you. For your example, a white hip-hop artist has to speak to an audience that is quite different, finding similarities between them to bridge the gap. It is also very difficult for poor people to become part of the rich crowd, or geeks to fit in with jocks. In the end, we don't really advance socially past our sixth-grade selves. It's possible to fit in with different crowds, but it does take a balance between being exceptionally talented and trying to bridge the gap with similarities. No football team will turn away a geeky kicker with a 50 yard field goal kick.
In the end, it's either high talent, high similarity, or both. We humans simply like to clique up.
> Interesting metaphor, but the author could've substituted "women" with "blacks", "hispanics", or any non-white male demographic and the article would've had the same effect.
There is an important distinction between women and blacks and hispanics, which is that the various challenges facing the latter groups are deeper and more varied. If you pick a random black man in the U.S., statistically his parents will be poorer and less educated than if you pick a random white man. So equality for those groups is deeply tied up with persistent economic disparities.
But with women that problem doesn't exist. An equal number of boys and girls are born into rich, well-connected families. Which eliminates a whole class of issues that could cause disparities between males and females, and makes the problem of gender representation in a way "easier" to solve.
Sure, but I don't think this article is aimed at explaining something to a minority. It's aimed at explaining to the majority what it feels like for those different than them. The point being that minorities shouldn't have to fight for every inch.
This is perhaps a tangential issue, but I don't think the author addressed the question she posed.
I was looking forward to seeing the author thoroughly dissect the ignorance inherent in the title, so I followed along with the methaphor as it lengthened. I also didn't object to the metaphor presuming the conclusions she set out to make, since metaphors are expository instruments intended to clarify and shed light on a complex underlying issue. But when I skimmed to the end and saw that she never moved on from the metaphor to an actual argument, I lost interest. A metaphor is not an argument. It can be a great way to introduce or conclude one, but it should never be the main course at an idea buffet.
This is one of the worst analogies I have even been exposed too. It is a straightforward issue, we don't need an analogy to grasp it, it was almost explicitly designed to muddy the waters.
It did a good job of hiding circle reasoning, logical fallacies and other failures of critical thinking.
EDIT: I do believe there is a real issue around gender in both the technology and nursing industries. This article just adds nothing to the conversation.
Protip: "I don't like this article" is not the same thing as "Nobody in the entire universe could benefit from this article." If you don't find it useful, fine. But lay off the drama.
In OP's analogy, a new male applicant has no edge over a new female applicant. He's still faced with an overcrowded escalator. In the real world, things can be quite different of course, and the analogy doesn't reflect that very well.
I think the premise is absurd. In two decades programming I've never personally seen evidence of women being held back in CS -- usually it's just the opposite in fact. I'd like for there to be more women in CS, but being honest I haven't seen anything holding them back except for themselves.
For instance even way back in my CS program for one of the women they actually made an exception to the rule that you need a 2.0 GPA to graduate in CS. This after years of official department women-only support groups and special instruction. What happened to the guys with less than 2.0? They didn't graduate CS. This same woman had six job offers after graduation.
I think the idea's good but the analogy presented is ridiculous.
As far as I could see, there isn't an escalator reserved for only men and one that is reserved for only women. The article touches on women having to use the one that is usually going down, and I kind of understand that to mean they are presented with extra difficulties, but in the given situation if someone wants a job more than the others and tries to climb the harder escalator, I believe that deserves a round of applause whether it's a man or a woman.
Another problem is that being most skilled is equated to being the fastest in the analogy. Here's where things go hard to explain without offending anyone but I'll try to take my chances. Just keep in mind that I'm not against females in any industry. If the real world is like the analogy and females can't get a tech job because they aren't as fast as men, then it is a good thing. Being a women is nothing special. For every woman who can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough, I bet there are 2 or more men who also can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough compared to others. I don't see men complaining in this situation. And to be perfectly honest I myself have lived through something like this recently. I am a very new comer to the programming world and I was turned down on my application to GSoC. I didn't think of trying to find nonexistent reasons, I knew it was because I was good enough (yet). From what I've been reading about female take on these situations, I'm led to believe that about half of them (or perhaps even more) would think that they were turned down because they are not male.
What I mean to say is that the article inherently implies that there are so many fast men that women can't get a job. I believe that is warping the truth to make people feel sorry into women. I'll most likely be crucified for saying this, but I would be glad if an unskilled woman can't get a job because there are more skilled men, I say that's a good thing. (I have long learned that the internet community and extreme feminists like to cherry pick on what you say while missing your point just to make a case against you, so I'll say that I would also be happy if the reverse is true, that is a man gets turned down because he isn't skilled enough).
And the last thing. The article mentions women who see that the escalator is overflowing with men largely turn around and not even try. This is a very female-centric approach. Men don't see something entirely else magically, they also see the escalator flowing with men. If anyone, male or female, turns around because the escalator is overflowing, then s/he does not want the job enough, s/he wants an easy ride.
This part of the analogy both degrades women and shows something entirely unlikable about the author's view. It implies that most women give up in the face of difficulty (the difficulty being that there are too many men). If that is the case this is not a case that can be argued against male domination in any industry. If women want to be represented more, then they should try more. Keep in mind this is assuming that what the author is implying.
And the author's silent implication (which is very offensive to me) that women should have a women only escalator that will overflow with women in time.
Go ahead, crucify me because this apparently is against what most people defend but it is important to keep everything fair while defending women's positions.
118 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] threadBut tech is too idealistic/libertarian to do something like that. They'll continue to complain and be criticized for the representation of women in the field, even though at this point I think it mostly comes down to a self-perpetuating equilibrium: women self-select out of the field simply because their representation is low in the field and very few people want to bring upon themselves the challenges of being a minority.
For example, I got all my early programming experience because hiding out in my dad's basement soaking up the glow of green phosphor was infinitely more pleasant than dealing with high-school society. Not because that was beneath me, although that's what I surely told myself at the time, but because I was terrible at it.
It took me years to catch up with my peer group as far as social skills went. Until then, I literally could not perceive a lot of the subtle interactions that demonstrate (and perpetuate) this problem.
I think that's where a lot of the field is. And, in some sense, where they want to be. It's really uncomfortable recognizing that some of what you thought was personal achievement is due to shit that shouldn't matter. It was for me, anyhow. And is, really; it's an ongoing process.
But you won't end up in the top, right? You'll end up somewhat high in a different spot--which is fine, but then you can't complain about not getting the top spot having voluntarily given up the chance to pursue it.
And I don't understand why one gives up the right to complain about a rigged game simply because one declines to play the game.
For example, I know people who won't work at Google because they think the promotions system there is a terrible one. They can still complain about it, even though they chose to work elsewhere, because it's something that's keeping them from working at Google.
I'm sure a forum where your ordinary physicians socialize, its pretty common to regret their choice to not get into engineering.
Your everyday physician is probably stuck in a quick sand just 5 years into his career.
No. If you are ambitious and confident in your abilities you will take on any challenges on the way to your goal, not take the easy way out by avoiding competition. That is what successful people (including successful women) actually do.
You go where the money is. That is also where the competition is. There is also the high risk, but potentially lucrative option of creating a new market where none existed before.
Or you can play it safe. Lower risk, lower reward.
1. What is the reason the women's escalator goes down?
2. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?
3. What is the elevator?
4. Why not just make everyone take the elevator? Why have a restricted running arrangement at all? Why not just have organized one-at-a-time races on a 100m track with a photo finish setup?
Companies don't have problem hiring - if they had they would have just hire people directly in other countries without all the H1B quotas bullshit. There is nothing you cannot do remotely by VPN and some collaborative tools. I have worked 6 years with half my team in Moscow. It worked wonders. When we had heated discussions we just closed skype instead of beating each other if we were in the same room.
They have problem hiring local talent to warm the chairs.
- Owning possessions
- Owning land
- Owning people
- Running a business
- Being owned by family
- Being owned by spouse
- Being actively selected against
- Being discriminated against, in general
- Going to school
- Going to university
- Housekeeping
- Working
- Raising children
- Being pregnant / giving birth / after
- Voting
I'm sure others could think of more.
And note that a penalty that offsets an unearned benefit is, from some angles, no penalty at all.
The expectation that everything should be fair from my perspective is something that I have because I'm a straight, white, upper-middle-class male. I get to assume that it's all about me, because it so often is. People from less privileged backgrounds don't expect that nearly as much.
Which brings us to the whole "sins of thy father" question.
Consider European genocide of Native Americans. Suppose they all had been wiped out. Or consider German genocide of Jews, with the same hypothetical. I think the "sins of thy father" question is: Should the descendants of the criminals be punished for the crimes of their ancestors?
My answer to this is "no". And I think bringing it up in this context mainly confuses things.
I think the question of privilege is about present-day social inequities. If the question is, "Should we work to make society fair to everybody, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, or other irrelevant factor?" There, my answer is a firm "yes".
Will that involve people with unearned privilege giving up that privilege? Sure. But that's not a punishment for being among one of the privileged groups, no matter how much it feels like it.
So, mostly point being, I think the escalator is a flawed analogy.
If you'd like to see more examples, Google "male privilege checklist". E.g.: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
But if you'd prefer a different analogy, try this one from sci-fi writer John Scalzi: "Straight White Male: The Lowest difficulty Setting": http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
That's not what the author says:
> There are also some men who are just standing on the escalator, simply letting the luck of the draw propel them up. Most of these men won’t make it to the room.
> 2. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?
It's a simulation of unequal privilege.
> 3. What is the elevator?
Support programs, quotas, empathy
> 4. Why not just make everyone take the elevator?
That is what was mentioned as stopping all the escalators (privilege), and making everyone use the stairs.
I also asked myself, what does it mean to say "Men should give up their privilege"? I'm not saying men aren't privileged, but at least spell out what that privilege is before embarking on a confusing metaphor that doesn't actually explain a whole lot.
If you want to know the basics, there are plenty of places to look. E.g., the Geek Feminism Wiki: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki
Nobody is obligated to do anything, but if they want their argument to be widely understood, which it's obvious (at least from these comments) that it's not, it's helpful to at least explain your premise.
And on this particular topic, it's reasonable to suspect that the people who have the "please spoon-feed me the basics" objection would just have a different objection.
For example, despite being provided a good starting point, you didn't say something like, "Thanks, now I'll go do my homework." Or, "Ah, now I understand." You just continued grumbling. And from an account fresh-created to comment on this topic.
This is a common enough problem that it's listed in a catalog of anti-patterns: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/
2. It's not that only men can ride it, it's that it's already full men, which is the current situation. Most people trying to get jobs in the technology area are men.
3. The elevator would be policies that help women in the technology areas. Be it affirmative action, or programs designed to help women in the area.
4. Because if you allow everyone in the elevator it would be full of men once again, and a line would form, with the same situation that it's happening in the escalator. If you could manage to make a line where people all queue correctly, and cancel both escalators, you would lose the current situation where people more skilled get to the second floor first.
I thought it was pretty clear. Did I manage to explain it better?
Point 1, is the only legitimate issue I see here, but I'm not seeing any suggestions on how to fix it, and no, handing someone a free pass just because they happen to be the right sex or race isn't the answer, it's just as bad as the problem it's supposed to be addressing.
As a straight white male, I've already received a number of unearned bonuses. If I fail to receive another dose of privilege, that is definitely not as bad as somebody who's been unfairly penalized receiving another penalty.
Even in the case where I'm improperly penalized so as to give a bonus to somebody who has less privilege, I don't think that's as bad as the reverse. I've still got my lifetime history of privilege; although it feels locally unfair to me, I don't think it's globally unfair.
What kind of bonuses are those?
(Also, as a straight white male, how do I sign up and get my black Amex?)
I was encouraged from an early age in math and science. I was given computer-ish toys (Big Trak represent!) and, later, computers. When I went with my dad to work and played around with their computing gear, nobody said that wasn't something boys should do. In my computer classes, everybody looked just like me. Nobody ever told me that I was good at these things "for a boy". Nobody suggested I should be spending my time on dolls, or make-up, or being appealing to boys. Nobody told me I should pick a college based on how many well-off men there were there. Nobody ever asked me to make them coffee because they thought I was the receptionist. Nobody ever told me I was too pretty to be a programmer. People listen to me more easily than my female colleagues.
And a zillion more, just for being a guy. Being white is a whole other set of things. As is being straight in a heteronormative society.
If you're really interested, these are some good starting points on examining and acknowledging one's privilege:
http://danilocampos.com/2013/02/unpacking-my-knapsack-the-pr... http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...
Would a secretary have tried to get you to play with dolls? Would one of the programmers have told you that you'd make a fine keypunch girl? Would an aunt have told your parents that you should be doing something more appropriate?
Even now, kids get a ton of gender policing. Back then, there was a lot more of it. And one of my privileges is that my technical interests happened to match my gender role.
Just looking at two other comment threads today - the guy on the doomed project and the guy sacked from Facebook within his first six months (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5784751 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5785759) - I have an alternative analogy. Y'all can let me know if this is more accurate:
There's a whole row of elevators. Some slowly head upwards, some downwards, some don't move at all - however, elevators can change speed or direction at any time. More often than not the change is in the downwards direction. Some of the faster-moving upwards elevators have velvet ropes or guards blocking them. It's hard to tell, because you can't really see more than one or two elevators at a time, and the guards are inconsistent, but it seems that to get onto the upward-moving elevators it helps to be straight, white and male. But to get on the really fast moving upwards elevators it's more helpful to be rich, well-educated, socially polished, and connected.
Complicating the picture is the shit cannons. Patrolling the top of the elevators are grinning guys in suits holding super-soakers filled with raw sewage. They blast the climbers at random. A few climbers make it to the top from their own efforts, fortunately avoiding any shit. They believe their success was down to hard work - onlookers say that they merely got lucky. What they really mean is that they weren't unlucky enough to be blasted in the chest with enough shit to send them back down to the bottom. Some people get blasted with a weaker, endurable stream of shit - these people often say that shit sucks but that you just have to deal with it. If you thought that it was grossly unfair that some people had access to the super high speed escalators, keep in mind that these escalators also feature the most brutal and indiscriminate shit cannons. A lot of the shit guards intentionally target women, though a few intentionally leave women alone. Others have other prejudices. It's pretty arbitrary.
Sometimes an entire escalator collapses. Everyone falls to the bottom and has to start again. Except the guys at the top, they're safe.
It's generally agreed that in the past, many more escalators moved upwards. With a few exceptions, a lot of escalators have collapsed or starting moving downwards in recent years. Still, everyone agrees that they're luckier than the guys born far away, who have to fight desperately just to get access to the least desirable escalators.
The author is pretty clear that she isn't trying to prove that men have a steady rise to the top. From the first paragraph she sets out to explain why criticisms like "Why do women try to get ahead by pulling men down?" are incorrect.
stopped reading there
[1] Intersectionality is the idea that different combinations of minority issues will have their own, often unique, challenges. In the video games difficulty setting analogy, think of intersectionality being the advanced mode with lots of little sliders for different things, rather than one scale of easy to hard.
If you want something more objective, this US-centric chart seems to be a good example: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
But you're right that the 20something hipster demo in tech definitely skews to the white.
However, these articles ignore the obvious difference between men and women. I (a guy) am interested in cars, computer games(FPS), working out, running, playing sports etc. My wife on the other hand is absolutely interested in all of those at a different level than I an interested in other things that I do not particularly enjoy like horseback riding. When I say she's interested in cars, she's interested in having a nice corvette, while I'm interested in working on a nice corvette. She likes working out, to be fit - I like working out to get stronger and more 'manly'. She loves to play sports because they're fun - I like to crush the other team.
I bring these things up because there are inherent differences between men and women that people seem to forget. It's not just nurture, but it's nature too. We are physically, mentally and emotionally different (not in all cases, but many).
I would love to see more women in the tech industry (I'm trying to get my wife involved). However, there will always be a difference in our mentalities because of our gender and these cannot be ignored so easily.
So, while we currently have different interests between the genders (speaking broadly), there's a good chance it's mostly nurture, which means that different attitudes early on could change that in the future.
I think there is a possibility that nurture does play a lot into the equation (I played sports growing up, while my wife went to 'lady' classes). My point with the nature vs nurture (and i can't prove it, merely speculate) is that testosterone/estrogen levels in each gender should not be ignored.
While this isn't the whole story, it's important to understand what may be attributed to innate differences and what may be attributed to cultural forces.
Today, 50% of people who get degrees in law, medicine, or accounting are women (up from basically nil in the middle of the 20th century). Is there anything more "masculine" about looking through a hex dump to debug a program than there is about poring through Excel spreadsheets to tie a deduction to an expenditure? It's all dry, analytical detail work at the end of the day. If anything, going by the usual stereotypes, programming is more suited to women--it requires a lot of patience and involves a creative aspect.
Is it a matter of mathematical ability? Possibly, but that doesn't explain the disparities you see. The differential between men and women among people with perfect SAT Math scores is 65:35. At the 700 level, its 60:40. Even if math skills are the most important thing, they don't explain the gender disparity among programmers (though it might explain the gender disparity among Fields medalists). If ~40% of all engineers were women, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
The article suggests that women are not 'doing well' in the tech industry because men are holding them back while completely ignoring that fact that many, many more men that are interested in tech, than women. Many women are just not interested in the field and never even make it to the scenario the author suggested.
No, but when fields that are very similar in terms of intellectual demands have dramatically different gender representations, there is reason to be suspicious about what is really driving the disparity.
A good example is teaching. There is no reason teaching should be more attractive to women than men, yet in the U.S. most teachers are women. But this disparity is entirely cultural--in some countries there is not only no stigma against male teachers, but a preference for them. Isn't it valid to ask why social structure is keeping men out of a solid, socially useful career?
It seems to be accepted that these characteristics are beneficial for coding.
So why wouldn't a 50/50 split in CS be evidence of discrimination against men?
You say "I bring these things up because there are inherent differences between men and women that people seem to forget," but the fact is, differences between men and women (true or not) are emphasized all the time. This holds true for toy advertising [2], discussion of career options [3], or political speech [4]. The idea that men and women are different is hardly forgotten — it's ubiquitous.
I think the question of whether differences really exist is too much to address in one comment and probably off-topic [5]. But I suggest that you consider the possibility that "there will always be a difference in our mentalities because of our gender" is, in fact, part of the problem.
[1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/01/14/0910967107.full...
[2]: http://youtu.be/oe65EGkB9kA?t=8m56s
[3]: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/01/04/gendering-on...
[4]: http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/10/08/la-times-debate-...
[5]: Though there is certainly evidence that differences are exaggerated. See: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/03/07/the-truth-ab...
"Boys are affected with ASDs [autism] more frequently than are girls with an average male-to-female ratio of 4.3:1"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism#cite_note-Newschaffer-11
This is just one characteristic that varies by sex of a great many. By saying "even if" there are differences you are ignoring objective reality that there are such differences.
The majority of men I have worked with, when asked, can't see themselves doing anything else. I have met exactly one woman in my life who has said anything like this to me.
The best programmer I ever knew was an Indian woman. I worked with her for six years. She became pregnant and was a stay-at-home mother for a few years, no doubt in my mind she gave that 100% too. Now she is doing something related to the legal profession and is doing quite well. It is the industry's loss, and will probably be chalked up to sexism when it is included in aggregate numbers. But in the end I believe it's because she had a wide array of options for conventional salary work, and chose something that gave her more money and more social prestige.
Note also the equivalent argument for race was used enthusiastically to justify slavery in the US. If you'd like to see it in action, go read the Cornerstone Speech, or the Texas Declaration of Secession.
You could be right that this time it is actually valid, but I think the burden of proof is on you. And given the company you're keeping with that style of rhetoric, I'd encourage you to set a pretty high bar.
> The escalator moving up is full of men. There is no room for women on this escalator.
The implication is that the men and women in the analogy both have the same average speed on their own. The men, purely by virtue of being male, then get a positive bonus applied to their speed by the up escalator. The woman get a negative speed penalty from the down escalator.
If you want it in pseudo-code:
The point of the article is to refute all of the arguments made that presume a simpler model than the above.I have never heard anyone say anything like this quote. Maybe I'm in an unusual workplaces, or I haven't been listening closely enough. Does this resemble a real statement in the gender inequality dialog?
The claim "women and men should be treated equally", even with an ignorance of any ongoing injustices towards women, does not seem equivalent to the above quote.
For example, the quote in question implies a zero-sum game, whereby advancing capable women inherently hurts men. This assumption is absent from "men and women should be treated equally."
What was curious was that the average acceptance score of the admitted girls was higher than for the boys. So the gender policy actually ended discriminating the girls - fewer were admitted than would have been if gender quotas were lifted. That was across the board in all engineering specialties and a few years in a row.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-...
"Such marriages are still relatively rare, though, even if their share is growing. Of all married couples, 24 percent include a wife who earns more, versus 6.2 percent in 1960."
"Demographically and socioeconomically, single mothers and married mothers are different from each others. The median family income for single mothers — who are disproportionately younger, black or Hispanic, and less educated — is $23,000. The median household income for married women who earn more than their husbands — more often white, slightly older and college-educated — is $80,000."
I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make, but it sounds like sexism along with classism and racism still have an impact on women's lives.
I don't personally believe there are a fixed number of spots. I believe that when you find a way to cram more people into the second floor, it expands.
A company may seem like it is only hiring five engineers today, but companies that hire good people, grow. Companies operating in an environment where more people are working, can sell more of their products and services.
Overall, more people being more productive expands the number of "spots on the second floor" for everyone.
Thus, I do not consider this an issue of choosing which people make it up the escalator, but rather a problem in trying to grow the size of the building. When looked at it in terms of growing the size of the building, we arrive at a completely different view of how we should handle escalators and the purpose of getting people to the second floor.
That's what the author is arguing: we're incorrectly ranking people because of a gender bias. Having a larger pool of poorly ranked people won't solve that.
If it comes down to two people, and there is a perception that A is better than B but both A and B are excellent candidates, a great company hires both.
My point is that if the ordering relation is wrong (which is what the article suggests) then it doesn't matter what subset you take: you're still not getting the best possible set of people. You have to get the right people. If your ordering is off, being more inclusive lets in as many more bad candidates as it does good ones.
Maybe the real question is why her analogous women are looking for elevators and going up the wrong escalator instead of just doing it the way everyone else is?
In terms of the analogy, yes men are pushing women down and the escalator is men only, whether explicitly stated or implicitly understood. This analogy is overstretched though, a lot of the discrimination people face is institutional in nature.
I can't find it in the first 200 submissions, even.
the author should have stated the first principles that are fundamentally true and then state her hypothesis of the employment market and justify them. she makes far too much assumptions without justifying them.
I never got past this. I would imagine that in a two-story building full of analytical people, someone would have questioned this immediately.
Look, as a black male startup founder I recognize I face a steeper uphill battle than my white counterparts. I get that. But I also understand that anytime anyone tries to break into an industry dominated by people unlike them, they're going to face resistance.
For example, white rappers have a far more difficult time breaking into hip hop. Its almost a requirement that their talent surpasses that of black rappers by leaps and bounds. They diligently practice their craft, writing witty punchlines and metaphors, using complex wordplay, (i.e. running up the 'down' elevator) while many black rappers lazily write nursery rhymes about the same tired subjects, (i.e. standing still on the 'up' elevator). I'm certain there are many white guys who get to the lobby, and upon seeing a sea of blacks riding the 'up' elevator, simply say, "Forget this, I'm gonna go learn some Python"
The fact is when you're a minority of any kind, (and I don't mean in terms of race, I mean in terms of any characteristic that makes you outside the majority) you should be prepared to fight for every inch.
Besides, when faced with the choice, I usually choose to take the stairs anyway. :-)
In the end, it's either high talent, high similarity, or both. We humans simply like to clique up.
There is an important distinction between women and blacks and hispanics, which is that the various challenges facing the latter groups are deeper and more varied. If you pick a random black man in the U.S., statistically his parents will be poorer and less educated than if you pick a random white man. So equality for those groups is deeply tied up with persistent economic disparities.
But with women that problem doesn't exist. An equal number of boys and girls are born into rich, well-connected families. Which eliminates a whole class of issues that could cause disparities between males and females, and makes the problem of gender representation in a way "easier" to solve.
I was looking forward to seeing the author thoroughly dissect the ignorance inherent in the title, so I followed along with the methaphor as it lengthened. I also didn't object to the metaphor presuming the conclusions she set out to make, since metaphors are expository instruments intended to clarify and shed light on a complex underlying issue. But when I skimmed to the end and saw that she never moved on from the metaphor to an actual argument, I lost interest. A metaphor is not an argument. It can be a great way to introduce or conclude one, but it should never be the main course at an idea buffet.
I liked how you illustrated this by making an argument and then concluding with a metaphor.
It did a good job of hiding circle reasoning, logical fallacies and other failures of critical thinking.
EDIT: I do believe there is a real issue around gender in both the technology and nursing industries. This article just adds nothing to the conversation.
For instance even way back in my CS program for one of the women they actually made an exception to the rule that you need a 2.0 GPA to graduate in CS. This after years of official department women-only support groups and special instruction. What happened to the guys with less than 2.0? They didn't graduate CS. This same woman had six job offers after graduation.
Stopped me cold. Maybe that mindset worked in the 1960s but this is the twenty-teens and that "privilege" left long ago.
As far as I could see, there isn't an escalator reserved for only men and one that is reserved for only women. The article touches on women having to use the one that is usually going down, and I kind of understand that to mean they are presented with extra difficulties, but in the given situation if someone wants a job more than the others and tries to climb the harder escalator, I believe that deserves a round of applause whether it's a man or a woman.
Another problem is that being most skilled is equated to being the fastest in the analogy. Here's where things go hard to explain without offending anyone but I'll try to take my chances. Just keep in mind that I'm not against females in any industry. If the real world is like the analogy and females can't get a tech job because they aren't as fast as men, then it is a good thing. Being a women is nothing special. For every woman who can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough, I bet there are 2 or more men who also can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough compared to others. I don't see men complaining in this situation. And to be perfectly honest I myself have lived through something like this recently. I am a very new comer to the programming world and I was turned down on my application to GSoC. I didn't think of trying to find nonexistent reasons, I knew it was because I was good enough (yet). From what I've been reading about female take on these situations, I'm led to believe that about half of them (or perhaps even more) would think that they were turned down because they are not male.
What I mean to say is that the article inherently implies that there are so many fast men that women can't get a job. I believe that is warping the truth to make people feel sorry into women. I'll most likely be crucified for saying this, but I would be glad if an unskilled woman can't get a job because there are more skilled men, I say that's a good thing. (I have long learned that the internet community and extreme feminists like to cherry pick on what you say while missing your point just to make a case against you, so I'll say that I would also be happy if the reverse is true, that is a man gets turned down because he isn't skilled enough).
And the last thing. The article mentions women who see that the escalator is overflowing with men largely turn around and not even try. This is a very female-centric approach. Men don't see something entirely else magically, they also see the escalator flowing with men. If anyone, male or female, turns around because the escalator is overflowing, then s/he does not want the job enough, s/he wants an easy ride.
This part of the analogy both degrades women and shows something entirely unlikable about the author's view. It implies that most women give up in the face of difficulty (the difficulty being that there are too many men). If that is the case this is not a case that can be argued against male domination in any industry. If women want to be represented more, then they should try more. Keep in mind this is assuming that what the author is implying.
And the author's silent implication (which is very offensive to me) that women should have a women only escalator that will overflow with women in time.
Go ahead, crucify me because this apparently is against what most people defend but it is important to keep everything fair while defending women's positions.