With all the sex discrimination and harassment charges, I sometimes wonder if founders get subconsciously influenced that hiring women can increase the risk of lawsuits to their companies. Not fair, I know! But you aren't thinking about fairness when it comes to your business that already has too many issues to take care of.
A possible solution to that is to mandate that all men also be given maternal (paternal?) leave when their partner has a child.
It would not completely eliminate the imbalance, since of course not every woman who gives birth has a male partner, but it should at least improve the situation.
It would be paid leave, and optional of course, so the men would not punished.
You could perhaps claim that the corporation was being "punished", but you could claim that forcing corporations to give maternal leave in the first place is "punishing" them. A certain amount of "punishment" of corporations is to be expected.
In reality, "punishment" is just "regulation that aims to modify the properties of a corporation". Manipulative, not punitive.
Ah! But if it's optional, I can only assume a lot of men would not opt for it, while women would probably be forced to take it at least for the first few weeks.
In an ideal world, from my point of view, leaves would be both equal and mandatory.
Still not a silver bullet. Women would still be disproportionately effected and it would further incentivize discrimination on the basis of family status.
You can tweak the parameters back and forth, but every solution will be imperfect.
There is also the matter of if it would be mandatory for women. If so, that would be discriminatory against women, as single women would more frequently be forced to put their careers on hold than single men. If it is mandatory for men but not women, that is also discriminatory.
A company with good family leave policies shouldn't care, or even notice if you are male or female. Part of reducing discrimination should be taking away the idea that women are the only ones who can take care of a kid!
I think it's better and more useful to ask "Why is my company so dysfunctional that I can't afford to have someone out on vacation?"
Remember that the difference between someone taking maternity leave, and someone quitting, is that people come back from maternity leave. If your company is so short-staffed that you can't afford to have someone out of office on maternity leave (or paternity leave, or even just a normal long vacation that they've saved up PTO for), then what are you going to do when those same people simply quit? The net effect is the same: you are now even more understaffed, but it's a permanent problem instead of a temporary one.
Why would I hire extra people just in case some of them leave? I'd wait until an employee said s/he was going to leave and then hire someone to replace them.
If it wasn't for the regulations you wouldn't even have vacation or maternity leave. It's capitalism, when you're in competition, any value you can throw under the bus to become more competetive will go under the bus - either you'll do it, or one of your competitors. The answer to the question "why is my company so dysfunctional" is often "because it can't afford to not be".
In a country with statutory maternity leave the maximum maternity period is much longer than the average holiday (The UK allows up to a full year). So you have to fill the gap by hiring another developer with the same skills who is happy to work on a temporary contract which might be more difficult and expensive than finding someone seeking a permanent position especially if you require rare skills.
Industries where skills and certifications are more standarised don't seem to have this problem.
For comparison in the US: My wife and I recently took about 60 days of leave (paid) when our daughter was born, but paid leave is uncommon in many industries. Federal law requires the employer to let you take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave after giving birth, and does not guarantee any pre-birth leave.
If you think that the hypothetical quote implies the author agrees with it, why?
When thinking about how to deal with sexist society, is it not important to understand all behaviors, illogical, immoral or sexist, in order to make things better for the disadvantaged?
Yes, and if you hire -for example- black paraplegic dwarfs you are going to deal with even more discrimination lawsuits.
Of course this isn't like it should be, is just the historical legacy of homogeneity on communities, is been this way for millions of years so it will take a lot time to change it.
Upvoted, because this is the flipside to "diversity" that a lot of people fail to acknowledge. Diversity can have positive effects on your group/community/organization but it also increases the likelihood of tension that might otherwise have not existed.
Actually no, because for it to be systematic there must be enough cases to be noticeable, and also they must pass all aptitude tests, and sometimes that puts some people in disadvantage: for example if one of the test for a new position is heavy lifting men will be the majority of the ones being selected, you can call it discrimination but is the same way choosing only people with computer degrees is discrimination.
> The suit also alleges that Hong was told that she was not integrated into her team at work “because she looks different and talks differently than other team members” and was subsequently replaced “by a less qualified, less experienced Indian male.”
Uh, what does her replacement being Indian have to do with anything? Unless the implication is that most/many of the other team members are also Indian? While it's not a stretch to believe that an employee would experience discrimination for being one of the relatively few women at a tech company...are there really that few Asian/ethnically Chinese employees at Facebook? Or perhaps just in her department?
Yes, Facebook has to have a lot of Asian employees (American definition of Asian which excludes Indians). I imagine this lawsuit is talking about her own team which may not have any other Asian team-member.
My guess is that because she is also accusing them of racial discrimination, when noting who replaced her it was relevant context. If you just say "male", people will assume it was a white male and that she was fired to make room for the patriarchy.
Because Anil Wilson is of Indian ancestry. She claims the group thought she did not fit in and she was replaced with someone who did. Also, see my comment below.
Unless the implication is that most/many of the other team members are also Indian?
That seems to be the implication. And yes, it may be relevant to understanding the context and merit of her claims.
EDIT: Not that the replacement hire's ethnicity by itself is relevant; but it may be relevant to her claim that after she was fired, they replaced her with with someone of the dominant ethnicity within that group.
The issues of diversity and equality are becoming increasingly harder to ignore for tech companies of all sizes. This is a great reminder to Facebook (and others watching) that they should care.
It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM. And no woman will be afraid to go and do her job.
These (and race included) are such confusing things for me to reason about. On one hand, equality is of course the goal for everyone. However, these arbitrary numbers - "one to one", as you put it - often(always?) end up as their own special form of discrimination. It's a sad state of affairs when we must use one form of discrimination to fight another.
One to one isn't an arbitrary ratio, though; it's the ratio of women to men. There are questions about positive discrimination, but I feel I have to point that out.
One to one is, however, not currently the ratio of women to men who are qualified as programmers. This implies that less qualified women will have to be hired at the expense of qualified men, in the world as it is now.
Shifting towards a 1:1 ratio would be nice, but that needs to be fixed by growing the talent pool, and isn't going to be solved at the hiring practice level.
It's arbitrary in the sense that 1:1 implies meaningful equality. Forcing women and men to go in and out of fields they like simply to enforce numbers is not equality, at least in my sense of the word.
To me, giving women and men a fair and equal chance at working in X industry, is equality. We have no idea what that ratio would be though, but i highly doubt it would end up at 1:1.
Under-representation of females in the IT industry is not a matter of hiring. Look at technical faculties all over the world and check their gender ratios. Or go to a gender-equalized party and start talking about technology, see what happens.
I'm not a misogynist, I like woman. But this lawsuit is not going to change anything, because it attacks just the symptoms. Women need to understand first that they really are just as good as men, consider Maire Curie or Ada Lovelace good examples.
Lawsuits and punitive actions are not intended to directly change anything. This particular suit seems to be intended to compensate a claimed victim. Alleviating symptoms is not exclusive with prevention.
> I'm not a misogynist, I like woman. But this lawsuit is not going to change anything, because it attacks just the symptoms. Women need to understand first that they really are just as good as men, consider Maire Curie or Ada Lovelace good examples.
Yeah. The gender problem in tech is because women don't understand something. Astute observation there. Perhaps you can explain it to women?
My point was that for some reason women do not choose technology. And that hiring (i.e. the demand on the jobs market) is not the issue, the intent to work (the supply) is.
And my second point was that women are perfectly capable of doing arbitrarily challenging work in IT.
If there is a 1:1 applicant pool then absolutely! If there is not a 1:1 hiring ratio implies hiring less qualified applicants to reach a quota (assuming equal distribution of skill, which I think most people would agree is the case).
Because that question is easily answered: It seems the more desirable goal would be that women and men can equally find the kind of work they want, instead of being forced into or out-of jobs on some purposeless quota system.
Sad that you're being downvoted[1]. People seem to think we can force a ratio and "win" in this scenario, it seems to be their goal. I never want a 1:1 ratio to be the goal.
I want equality. I want all women and men to have the jobs they desire. If that ends up 1.5 men for every woman in tech, that's okay! If it ends up with 2 women for every man that's okay!
Equality is not about the numbers. Focusing on the numbers will only lead to furthering equality issues.
1: were being downvoted at the time of my writing this, atleast
heh.
edit: Sad that the people downvoting don't have the courage to discuss it on a forum. Be bigger, explain your points.. if you have any.
It's a divisive issue that people are very sensitive to, and if someone perceives your point as wrong, they will just downvote you. Deal with it, or don't comment on threads about sexism if you can't. Complaining about it is unlikely to make it better, and will only result in more downvotes.
Eh, the downvotes weren't that bad. I wasn't complaining about the downvotes, as much as people acting in the manner you describe. I don't think i have it in me to not comment on that, just as they seem to not have it in them to attempt to silence the opposition heh.
> It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM. And no woman will be afraid to go and do her job.
okay, i'll jump on this grenade.
will there one day also be one male nurse for every female nurse? one male elementary school teacher for one female elementary school teacher? or one male social worker for every female one? receptionist? hair stylist?
how about one female oil rig roughneck for every male roughneck? one female coal miner for every male? how about plumber, or roofer, or underwater welder? and garbage truck drivers?
what about the female civil engineers? structural engineers? physical plant engineers? construction foremen? these people build things too, arguably things even more real-er than stupid smartphone apps.
it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work for nerds who didn't fit in anywhere else, i didn't see much if any hullaballoo over the lack of females in these roles. now that all of a sudden everyone including celebrities spends their entire day glued to the internet like a bad crack habit and people are getting rich off ones and zeroes, it's all of a sudden a real big deal and really super duper important. like i said, funny.
//edit flippant attitude aside, there is real discrimination happening here.
> One important result from Table 6 is that females receive even shorter sentences relative to men than whites relative to blacks. The discrimination literature generally argues that females are objects of discrimination and receive worse outcomes. In sentencing, however, women receive better outcomes, consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women,58 studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.59
And if you have a philosophy of "equal outcomes" not just "equal opportunity", you need to think hard about how equal outcomes would look in all scenarios.
Exactly. This is what I also see. We're having the discussion about equality because the field is high-status. No one is asking why waste collectors are mostly men - because most people would like to avoid this line of work when possible.
Have you searched for those things? There are lots of campaigns to get more women in those jobs... just google the job title and more women or even feminism.
> Another finding from the studies was that most women will go into white-collar jobs, but there will also be a large number of energy jobs available in blue-collar areas. Several jobs, such as welding, fall into this category, and they offer good salaries, but women typically do not pursue jobs in this area. In part, this could be because there are comparatively few women currently in these areas, so it is difficult for other women to see themselves doing these jobs.
WIM
> Created in 2006, WIM (UK) now counts over 1,300 members, from all corners of mining-related businesses and professions.
> it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work for nerds who didn't fit in anywhere else, i didn't see much if any hullaballoo over the lack of females in these roles. now that all of a sudden everyone including celebrities spends their entire day glued to the internet like a bad crack habit and people are getting rich off ones and zeroes, it's all of a sudden a real big deal and really super duper important. like i said, funny.
I think you're lacking a bit of perspective here. At first, when it was considered routine, rote work, it was mostly women who were programmers (you can find contemporaneous articles saying it's appropriate work for women because programming is basically like preparing a dinner). It was only as companies started to realize the importance and difficulty of the work that women were largely driven out.
No, the male programmers back then were doing data entry too. It mainly has to do with the transition from punch cards to digital storage. A "programmer" was someone who entered a program or data into a computer. The definition of the role changed as computers did.
> will there one day also be one male nurse for every female nurse? one male elementary school teacher for one female elementary school teacher? or one male social worker for every female one? receptionist? hair stylist?
Sexists say this every time the subject comes up on HN. There are programmes in each of those industries to reduce the gender imbalance.
it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work
You do realize that back when being a "computer" (look up the original definition) and programmer were low-status jobs, they were primarily held by women, don't you?
They were low status jobs because they were data entry positions. I mention this elsewhere in the thread but the definition of "programmer" changed over time from someone who enters the program into a computer (initially through punch cards) to someone who designs the actual software the computer runs.
you're not getting my point - it doesn't matter what they were called, it was a low status job. that's why nobody cared whether they came or went.
back in the day, women only had low status jobs. that's the point. they were secretaries, assistants, computer programmers, etc. now they're PR executives, bankers, lawyers, etc. the times changed, not the job.
I don't think a 1:1 ratio should be a goal. I think "any women that wants to be in tech can do so without any gender discrimination" is much healthier.
Forcing more women into a field that they didn't choose on their own is its own form of discrimination.
I also think we should stop pointing to unresolved harassment claims and using them as fact that there is discrimination in our industry. Anyone can file a claim, proving your case and winning is an entirely different thing.
Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that I'm afraid is getting lost in a lot of this discussion.
A 1:1 ratio isn't a "goal", it's how things statistically would be, in any field with a large enough population, when biological sex becomes as socio-economically significant as shoe size. That is with the possible exception of any fields that directly involve biological sex differences, but we don't even have a definite answer that there are any of those.
> It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM.
Will never happen, if for no other reason than the fact that a non-trivial amount of women are stay-at-home mothers (even though it's far less than previous generations, plenty of mothers still choose this option).
Working to achieve a 1:1 sex ratio between men and women creates a sense of division by fundamentally looking at men and women as different when they should be looked at as the same in the workplace. It fosters a sense of "otherness", polarization, two separate groups and a sense of difference, when there should be a sense of LACK of importance of gender/sex.
Same pattern applies to racial diversity. By looking at skin color and purposefully categorizing people and trying to achieve a certain balance, you enhance a sense of group-identity and otherness that creates racial division in the first place.
I think this is why this issue seems so intractable. Just by talking about and labeling groups you help reinforce and create those groups and divisions between them.
How could you solve the problem without indicating the group of people who is being treated differently?
I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.
I guess first you have to specifically define "the problem" because there are tons of situations like this.
> no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now
Is this really true? Perhaps you could find ways to improve processes overall so that "equality" was an outcome of an improved unbiased process without focusing on specific race, sex or beliefs.
Disclaimer: I'm all for bringing as many women as possible on board the tech industry ship for their fun and profit. I fully support improving job conditions of anyone in tech industry who may be treated unfairly and empowering groups that are currently at disadvantage.
But.
>one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer
>We're still so far from this dream...
There are billions of women who live on less than $5 per day. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions of curious, intlelligent, inquisitve girls who won't have even a miniscule chance to become a modern Ada Lovelace because of poverty, abuse, preventable illnesses, lack of education, early pregnancies and exploitation. But somehow I am not seeing nearly as many posts and comments full with righteous indignation about that on HN.
I wish there would be a community dedicated to programming, tech entrepreneurship and social good for like-minded people from developing countries. No first world problems allowed.
I think 1:1 is a little bit of a stretch initially, but should be the long term goal. The short term goal for new hires should be to match the ratio of males:females graduating with degrees which is currently less than 1:1.[1] Once we reach that point then the number of women seeking a tech education will also rise.
Take a minute to imagine if this 1:1 ratio "dream" comes true...
Sally Programmer is working for Company X. One day, she gets an offer from Company Y. So she quits her job at Company X. What does Company X do? They start a search for a new programmer, of course. Oh... but they need to maintain their 1:1 quota... so for this round, only female applicants will be screened. Joe Coder sends in his resume. Sorry, Joe... they're only hiring women today.
Congratulations, you just traded one discrimination for another. And this new discrimination cuts both ways. Next time, after Bob Builder quits, Company X would not be screening female applicants. (Imagine how the world would lose their shit right now if a company posted an ad: "Wanted ~ Programmer (males only please)".
Edit: Oh snap! We forgot to mention, Sally is also Indian. There is a racial quota too. So Company X needs to hire an Indian woman.
Edit 2: Well, isn't this embarrassing... turns out Sally is also gay. Company X needs to hire a gay Indian woman to maintain that ratio too.
Edit 3: Son of a ... We were just informed that Sally also suffered from Spina Bifida. Company X says "screw it!" and decides to just pay the fine and hire the most qualified person because that makes more sense than trying to find another gay, handicapped Indian woman to replace Sally.
I don't think we should strive to achieve 1:1. Instead, we should strive to achieve the ideal life-work balance for each individual.
For example, in the Netherlands, where (if I understand correctly) companies are incentivised offer part-time positions, 60% of women choose to work only part-time [1].
I can't find any info on the person being sued, but his firstname suggest Indian ancestry. So there seems to be this case, Ellen Pao's and Vic Gundotra at Google? Coincidence?
I think you might have just accidentally racist there.
Not every male of Indian ancestry is a brutal rapist, nor should every male of Indian ancestry be singled out as a potential sexist because of brutal rapes happening in India.
I am not implying anything about every male of Indian ancestry. I am just pointing out that in the last 3 sexual harassment cases from SV, Indian males seem to be involved.
Yes, but suing costs a lot of money, so people don't tend to do it because they've "interpreted wrongly" a few isolated comments. She's suing 51 people - that's a lot of co-workers who just wondered why she opted to choose a career instead of a family.
(Also, asking women why they aren't staying home instead of having a family is the example HR uses when they talk about sexual discrimination. If you're working in a major corporation in America in the 21st Century, you should know that that question is not ok.)
Do you think it's good that men treat each other like shit?
I think it can be just as oppressive when a stronger man treats a weaker man like shit as it is when a man treats a woman like shit. (By 'weak' in this context I am talking about power differential and not some inherent quality of the individual).
> Do you think it's good that men treat each other like shit?
Yes. If you can't take the heat, don't jump in the oven.
Respect is something that have to be earned. I will treat anyone with disrespect (bosses, presidents and pope included) until you earn it and show you have worth as a human being.
As a parallel, just because white people treat other white people poorly doesn't make institutional racism of white treating people of color poorly acceptable.
One of my problems with feminism is that it elevates women to a priviliged status while leaving males with low status behind, which just makes them worse off overall.
We have to stop this groupism and treat everyone properly, period. The only rights there are are human rights.
There is no one definition of feminism. Feminism is a "big tent" term. So generally, you can't sustain an argument that feminism doesn't say or do X, Y or Z, within a fairly broad scope.
That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."
For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men---including all those men that are already at the bottom of the pyramid (like, say, the ones who serve as cannon fodder in wars). That is reprehensible. Those men need our help, not to be treated like crap even more.
The only kind of intellectual position that is a respectable one is an intellectual position that is well defined. "Big tent" terms and movements should be rejected. They always consist of better people providing cover for worse people. "Islam" is another example.
> That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."
That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.
> For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men
The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
> That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.
No it doesn't. It doesn't apply to most concepts. If it did, concepts would not work.
Democracy is rule by the majority. There is no ambiguity there. That there are many implementations doesn't make the term ambiguous.
> The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
It is not non-obvious. You just have to listen to feminists.
>For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men
Patriarchy is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." Overthrowing such a system =/= 'taking retribution against all men'
“why she did not just stay home and take care of her child instead of having a career,”
because asking a female coworker this question has a subtext behind it that is, "I find it peculiar or odd that you chose to have a career". In what other ways do you think it's normal for someone to justify why they want to work? You would never ask this question to a male coworker who recently had a child.
Stereotyping is usually 'legitimate' in the mind of the person doing it. Few people are intentionally trying to be oppressive. It is usually an unconscious echoing of the culture one is accustomed to. That doesn't make it less damaging.
“why she did not just stay home and take care of her child instead of having a career”
Considering most Indian families in the bay area are dual income, I find it weird that they'd be surprised to see a woman working instead of taking care of her child.
"The discrimination included, but was not limited to, plaintiff being belittled at work and asked why she did not just stay home and take care of her children; being admonished when she exercised her right under company policy to take time off to visit her child at school; being ordered to organize parties and serve drinks to male colleagues, which was not a part of her job description and not something that was requested of males with whom she worked; and being replaced by a less qualified, less experienced male."
1) Don't think any company will ever do this
2) She realised this after she got replaced?
Edit: why am I getting downvotes here? People need to explain before downvoting..
116 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] thread1. How can I hire great people?
2. How can I create a culture where women aren't discriminated against?
It would not completely eliminate the imbalance, since of course not every woman who gives birth has a male partner, but it should at least improve the situation.
You could perhaps claim that the corporation was being "punished", but you could claim that forcing corporations to give maternal leave in the first place is "punishing" them. A certain amount of "punishment" of corporations is to be expected.
In reality, "punishment" is just "regulation that aims to modify the properties of a corporation". Manipulative, not punitive.
In an ideal world, from my point of view, leaves would be both equal and mandatory.
Of course. There is no silver bullet. If you are expecting one, you will be perpetually disappointed.
You can tweak the parameters back and forth, but every solution will be imperfect.
There is also the matter of if it would be mandatory for women. If so, that would be discriminatory against women, as single women would more frequently be forced to put their careers on hold than single men. If it is mandatory for men but not women, that is also discriminatory.
Currently in the US, women cannot be forced to take maternity leave: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html
Remember that the difference between someone taking maternity leave, and someone quitting, is that people come back from maternity leave. If your company is so short-staffed that you can't afford to have someone out of office on maternity leave (or paternity leave, or even just a normal long vacation that they've saved up PTO for), then what are you going to do when those same people simply quit? The net effect is the same: you are now even more understaffed, but it's a permanent problem instead of a temporary one.
Industries where skills and certifications are more standarised don't seem to have this problem.
When thinking about how to deal with sexist society, is it not important to understand all behaviors, illogical, immoral or sexist, in order to make things better for the disadvantaged?
Of course this isn't like it should be, is just the historical legacy of homogeneity on communities, is been this way for millions of years so it will take a lot time to change it.
Uh, what does her replacement being Indian have to do with anything? Unless the implication is that most/many of the other team members are also Indian? While it's not a stretch to believe that an employee would experience discrimination for being one of the relatively few women at a tech company...are there really that few Asian/ethnically Chinese employees at Facebook? Or perhaps just in her department?
That seems to be the implication. And yes, it may be relevant to understanding the context and merit of her claims.
EDIT: Not that the replacement hire's ethnicity by itself is relevant; but it may be relevant to her claim that after she was fired, they replaced her with with someone of the dominant ethnicity within that group.
It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM. And no woman will be afraid to go and do her job.
We're still so far from this dream...
I wish i had answers, but all i see are problems.
Shifting towards a 1:1 ratio would be nice, but that needs to be fixed by growing the talent pool, and isn't going to be solved at the hiring practice level.
To me, giving women and men a fair and equal chance at working in X industry, is equality. We have no idea what that ratio would be though, but i highly doubt it would end up at 1:1.
I'm not a misogynist, I like woman. But this lawsuit is not going to change anything, because it attacks just the symptoms. Women need to understand first that they really are just as good as men, consider Maire Curie or Ada Lovelace good examples.
Yeah. The gender problem in tech is because women don't understand something. Astute observation there. Perhaps you can explain it to women?
And my second point was that women are perfectly capable of doing arbitrarily challenging work in IT.
Why is this a desirable outcome?
I want equality. I want all women and men to have the jobs they desire. If that ends up 1.5 men for every woman in tech, that's okay! If it ends up with 2 women for every man that's okay!
Equality is not about the numbers. Focusing on the numbers will only lead to furthering equality issues.
1: were being downvoted at the time of my writing this, atleast heh.
edit: Sad that the people downvoting don't have the courage to discuss it on a forum. Be bigger, explain your points.. if you have any.
okay, i'll jump on this grenade.
will there one day also be one male nurse for every female nurse? one male elementary school teacher for one female elementary school teacher? or one male social worker for every female one? receptionist? hair stylist?
how about one female oil rig roughneck for every male roughneck? one female coal miner for every male? how about plumber, or roofer, or underwater welder? and garbage truck drivers?
what about the female civil engineers? structural engineers? physical plant engineers? construction foremen? these people build things too, arguably things even more real-er than stupid smartphone apps.
it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work for nerds who didn't fit in anywhere else, i didn't see much if any hullaballoo over the lack of females in these roles. now that all of a sudden everyone including celebrities spends their entire day glued to the internet like a bad crack habit and people are getting rich off ones and zeroes, it's all of a sudden a real big deal and really super duper important. like i said, funny.
//edit flippant attitude aside, there is real discrimination happening here.
> One important result from Table 6 is that females receive even shorter sentences relative to men than whites relative to blacks. The discrimination literature generally argues that females are objects of discrimination and receive worse outcomes. In sentencing, however, women receive better outcomes, consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women,58 studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.59
http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf
And if you have a philosophy of "equal outcomes" not just "equal opportunity", you need to think hard about how equal outcomes would look in all scenarios.
Example: http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/135815/API_Study_Getti... https://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/article/fancy-commuting-by-heli... http://www.womeninmining.org.uk/
Rigzone:
> Another finding from the studies was that most women will go into white-collar jobs, but there will also be a large number of energy jobs available in blue-collar areas. Several jobs, such as welding, fall into this category, and they offer good salaries, but women typically do not pursue jobs in this area. In part, this could be because there are comparatively few women currently in these areas, so it is difficult for other women to see themselves doing these jobs. WIM
> Created in 2006, WIM (UK) now counts over 1,300 members, from all corners of mining-related businesses and professions.
I think you're lacking a bit of perspective here. At first, when it was considered routine, rote work, it was mostly women who were programmers (you can find contemporaneous articles saying it's appropriate work for women because programming is basically like preparing a dinner). It was only as companies started to realize the importance and difficulty of the work that women were largely driven out.
The blatant unrepentant sexism in this thread, not just you but a bunch of other people, is disturbing.
Sexists say this every time the subject comes up on HN. There are programmes in each of those industries to reduce the gender imbalance.
You do realize that back when being a "computer" (look up the original definition) and programmer were low-status jobs, they were primarily held by women, don't you?
back in the day, women only had low status jobs. that's the point. they were secretaries, assistants, computer programmers, etc. now they're PR executives, bankers, lawyers, etc. the times changed, not the job.
Forcing more women into a field that they didn't choose on their own is its own form of discrimination.
I also think we should stop pointing to unresolved harassment claims and using them as fact that there is discrimination in our industry. Anyone can file a claim, proving your case and winning is an entirely different thing.
Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that I'm afraid is getting lost in a lot of this discussion.
Will never happen, if for no other reason than the fact that a non-trivial amount of women are stay-at-home mothers (even though it's far less than previous generations, plenty of mothers still choose this option).
Where I've worked women far outnumber men in PM roles... and that's OK.
Working to achieve a 1:1 sex ratio between men and women creates a sense of division by fundamentally looking at men and women as different when they should be looked at as the same in the workplace. It fosters a sense of "otherness", polarization, two separate groups and a sense of difference, when there should be a sense of LACK of importance of gender/sex.
Same pattern applies to racial diversity. By looking at skin color and purposefully categorizing people and trying to achieve a certain balance, you enhance a sense of group-identity and otherness that creates racial division in the first place.
I think this is why this issue seems so intractable. Just by talking about and labeling groups you help reinforce and create those groups and divisions between them.
I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.
> no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now
Is this really true? Perhaps you could find ways to improve processes overall so that "equality" was an outcome of an improved unbiased process without focusing on specific race, sex or beliefs.
But.
>one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer >We're still so far from this dream...
There are billions of women who live on less than $5 per day. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions of curious, intlelligent, inquisitve girls who won't have even a miniscule chance to become a modern Ada Lovelace because of poverty, abuse, preventable illnesses, lack of education, early pregnancies and exploitation. But somehow I am not seeing nearly as many posts and comments full with righteous indignation about that on HN.
I wish there would be a community dedicated to programming, tech entrepreneurship and social good for like-minded people from developing countries. No first world problems allowed.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Statistics_i...
Sally Programmer is working for Company X. One day, she gets an offer from Company Y. So she quits her job at Company X. What does Company X do? They start a search for a new programmer, of course. Oh... but they need to maintain their 1:1 quota... so for this round, only female applicants will be screened. Joe Coder sends in his resume. Sorry, Joe... they're only hiring women today.
Congratulations, you just traded one discrimination for another. And this new discrimination cuts both ways. Next time, after Bob Builder quits, Company X would not be screening female applicants. (Imagine how the world would lose their shit right now if a company posted an ad: "Wanted ~ Programmer (males only please)".
Edit: Oh snap! We forgot to mention, Sally is also Indian. There is a racial quota too. So Company X needs to hire an Indian woman.
Edit 2: Well, isn't this embarrassing... turns out Sally is also gay. Company X needs to hire a gay Indian woman to maintain that ratio too.
Edit 3: Son of a ... We were just informed that Sally also suffered from Spina Bifida. Company X says "screw it!" and decides to just pay the fine and hire the most qualified person because that makes more sense than trying to find another gay, handicapped Indian woman to replace Sally.
For example, in the Netherlands, where (if I understand correctly) companies are incentivised offer part-time positions, 60% of women choose to work only part-time [1].
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/du...
Not every male of Indian ancestry is a brutal rapist, nor should every male of Indian ancestry be singled out as a potential sexist because of brutal rapes happening in India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_inequality_in_India
India ranked 101 out of 136 countries in 2013.
(Also, asking women why they aren't staying home instead of having a family is the example HR uses when they talk about sexual discrimination. If you're working in a major corporation in America in the 21st Century, you should know that that question is not ok.)
This is like a kind of thought policing, and it's sick.
I think it can be just as oppressive when a stronger man treats a weaker man like shit as it is when a man treats a woman like shit. (By 'weak' in this context I am talking about power differential and not some inherent quality of the individual).
Yes. If you can't take the heat, don't jump in the oven.
Respect is something that have to be earned. I will treat anyone with disrespect (bosses, presidents and pope included) until you earn it and show you have worth as a human being.
People should be treated with respect until they have shown they don't deserve it.
Your comment here betrays a nasty perspective on the human race.
Is this an axiom (in which case further discussion is pointless, since your world view is incompatible with mine) or something you could prove.
One of my problems with feminism is that it elevates women to a priviliged status while leaving males with low status behind, which just makes them worse off overall.
We have to stop this groupism and treat everyone properly, period. The only rights there are are human rights.
I disagree. You're confusing Misandry and Feminism.
That is my bigger problem with feminism: people with more reasonable views are providing cover for people with less reasonable views, since they all just call it "feminism."
For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men---including all those men that are already at the bottom of the pyramid (like, say, the ones who serve as cannon fodder in wars). That is reprehensible. Those men need our help, not to be treated like crap even more.
The only kind of intellectual position that is a respectable one is an intellectual position that is well defined. "Big tent" terms and movements should be rejected. They always consist of better people providing cover for worse people. "Islam" is another example.
That applies to pretty much everything -- from agile development to democracy -- not just feminism.
> For many feminists, feminism absolutely is about "overthrowing patriarchy," which in practice means taking retribution against all men
The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
No it doesn't. It doesn't apply to most concepts. If it did, concepts would not work.
Democracy is rule by the majority. There is no ambiguity there. That there are many implementations doesn't make the term ambiguous.
> The support for the claim that this is particularly interpretation of "overthrowing patriarchy" is in fact the goal of "many feminists" is non-obvious. Please identify it.
It is not non-obvious. You just have to listen to feminists.
Patriarchy is defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." Overthrowing such a system =/= 'taking retribution against all men'
because asking a female coworker this question has a subtext behind it that is, "I find it peculiar or odd that you chose to have a career". In what other ways do you think it's normal for someone to justify why they want to work? You would never ask this question to a male coworker who recently had a child.
Considering most Indian families in the bay area are dual income, I find it weird that they'd be surprised to see a woman working instead of taking care of her child.
1) Don't think any company will ever do this 2) She realised this after she got replaced?
Edit: why am I getting downvotes here? People need to explain before downvoting..
A lawyer told me even if you have a legitimate case then you still try to tack on as much extra shit as possible.