
As a female engineer, I am not diversity - zhangela
https://hackernoon.com/i-am-not-diversity-8f5abc876acc
======
gorpomon
In reference to the point she makes about people not assuming women are
developers, I now make it a point to assume two things about most everyone
(male and female identifying) that I meet in tech:

1) That they are competent and smart until they definitely prove otherwise to
me.

2) That they are technical and interested in technology.

It's worked really well for me so far. In practice it means when I meet
someone I say "You're a dev right?". Most people appreciate being assumed to
be technical, and if they aren't we still get a great convo out of it. I admit
it's kind of a silly thing, but so far in years of doing it I don't know of a
time it's made anyone feel bad.

Edit - Also, if their answer to the dev question is that they are instead a
product manager, UX, Designer, etc, I try and follow up with a funny
compliment about their field. "Ah, so you make apps useable", etc. Again, just
a simple conversational technique to make people feel valued.

~~~
skrebbel
I try to do the same, and I share your experience.

That said, sometimes it gets awkward in funny ways. A few months ago I was at
a conference/event selling our product (booth and everything), talking to two
young Polish girls who were running a tech startup. I don't recall the details
by heart, but it was some marketplace I think. Our product is relatively
technical, so your approach, "You're a dev, right?" usually pays off. But
these founders giggled, rolled their eyes, and said "Do we _look_ like
developers to you?"

Eh, yes? :/

~~~
rexaliquid
I can see that getting awkward! But, you might also have been able to save the
moment with a confident "Yes. You look like you'd make awesome developers."

I try to live by "It's only awkward if you let it be awkward" to get through
those situations.

------
bootsz
Great article. Thanks for sharing this. I think perspectives like yours are
what we need to move beyond what are often one-dimensional conversations about
diversity.

Aside: Please forgive the nitpick, but despite its widespread use I really
don't think "extroverted introvert" is a thing. The problem is that these two
things are opposite ends of a spectrum. I think what people really mean when
they say "extroverted introvert" is one of two things:

1) Ambivert : "a person whose personality has a balance of extrovert and
introvert features"

2) Introvert, but not shy : It is a common misconception that introverts are
inherently shy. The two are correlated, but not the same thing. You can be
introverted and not be shy, either inherently or by learning to overcome
shyness. Extra/introversion has more to do with your preferences and where you
derive energy from. Shyness is more fear-based, and fear can be overcome.

Anyway that's not really a critical part of your article but I've sort of
unintentionally become a Myers-Briggs nerd over the years and enjoy discussing
stuff like that :)

~~~
zwieback
I just finished "The personality brokers", fantastic book, which explores how
E<>I entered popular culture via the Myers-Briggs test.

When the E<>I spectrum was subjected to more rigorous analysis it turned out
it may just be a metric of "talkativeness" and not really related to the
Jungian concept.

~~~
bootsz
Hmm.. Talkativeness seems way too narrow to me. The theory of deriving energy
externally vs. internally makes the most sense to me personally. Though it
would certainly correlate with talkativeness. But I'm not an expert on the
matter :)

~~~
thanatropism
Yeah but then you have to define energy.

------
iagovar
I just hope this diversity drama never comes to my country.

I already work in a very diverse workplace. Both genders and multiple
nationalities are represented, and I really don't see what that brigs to the
table. I mean, why is diversity good per se?

I don't see any correlation between any demographic variable and being a good
coworker.

~~~
SquirrelOnFire
On an individual level, it doesn't improve being a good coworker.

On an institutional level, you get a broader set of ideas when you have a more
diverse workforce, giving you a better chance at a black swan idea. And
frankly, better odds of preventing disaster (Chevy wouldn't have tried to sell
a car called the "Nova" in Mexico if they'd had a spanish speaker on the team.
No Va means No Go).

There's also evidence that diverse teams do better -
[https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/organization/our...](https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity)

~~~
iagovar
> you get a broader set of ideas

I'm sorry but I'm still failing to see it. My experience in my company does
not support that hypothesis (and it's really a large one) and the link you
provided the only thing that is really proving is that more executive women is
correlated with more profitability, which could perfectly be (and probably be)
the consequence of other institutional factors.

We do have locals in every market we play, but that's pretty common sense, you
have to know the language and cultural references.

But again, I'm not in the US nor I work for a US company. Maybe that has
something to do, IDK.

------
justaman
I'm going to say it. The most excluded group in SV are conservative
republicans. Its a death sentence to your career to come out as one. If you
truly value diversity, their point of view is the most absent from tech.

~~~
babygoat
It's also the most incompatible point of view. They do not want to be around
diversity.

~~~
sydd
Every one of them? Isnt this the textbook definition of generalization that
diversity is supposed to counter?

~~~
Frondo
Well, conservatives in the US have thrown in with a party that typically
demonizes people of color, is actively working to disenfranchise them, and has
a growing white nationalist element to it.

Are there some conservatives who really just care about there being too much
government regulation, or whatever? Sure. Looking at the party they rally
around and the way it wants to treat people, there sure are some general
trends that do not speak to a desire to embrace diversity.

~~~
Konnstann
There's a difference between being a Republican, and being a Conservative. To
that end, the Republican party itself is not the monolith that you see in the
Democratic party. There still exist factions that resulted in the passage of a
lot of Democratic policies while the Reps. controlled Congress during the last
presidency.

While I don't support the Republican party, I still hold conservative ideals,
primarily regarding regulation and oversight. My social views are fairly
liberal, but I don't identify with the progressive movement and intersectional
politics.

EDIT: I think diversity is great, but diversity as an end goal is misguided.

~~~
babygoat
> To that end, the Republican party itself is not the monolith that you see in
> the Democratic party.

What on earth are you talking about?

------
wccrawford
I do think that pointing at someone's physical body and saying, "They bring
diversity because they're X!" is wrong.

However, I do think that gender and race have an influence on your thought
processes because of who you tend to associate with.

In addition, she spent 15 years in China, which is definitely not very common
here in the US. That alone means she's going to think somewhat differently
than the average engineer.

And finally, a lack of diversity in a group (all white hetero males, for
example) indicates an attempt to exclude diversity, though perhaps
subconsciously.

~~~
jriot
A group of white males can be diverse, we just don't accept it.

Do you think a group of white males who went to Stanford, MIT etc... right
after high school, are the same as those who joined the military, yet now work
in the same company?

~~~
malcolmgreaves
They will have a common thread: they all will be recipients of privileged
treatment by society. That is indeed a crucially important fact that will
share their attitudes and perspectives.

~~~
briandear
White male coal miners, it could be argued, have had a lot less privilege than
a Bobo Stanford grad female accountant. Nancy Pelosi has had a heck of a lot
more privilege than some laid off Detroit auto worker.

Elizabeth Holmes, who’s father was Christian Holmes IV, a former Vice
President of Enron, was a lot more privileged than pretty much anyone reading
this now.

The idea that gender alone determines privilege is ridiculous. It’s far more
complex. Yet hiring a pedigreed Elizabeth Holmes would be “diversity” but
hiring some West Virginia white male community college grad from a coal miner
family would be “Privilege.” That’s ridiculous. Hiring a black Princeton grad
is “diversity” but hiring a white University of El Paso grad is “privilege.”

If people really care about diversity, they’d hire for diversity of experience
or diversity of thought rather than diversity of biology.

~~~
malcolmgreaves
Please do some.more reading on what white privilege is. You are confusing it
for physical or financial comfort: this is not an correct interpretation.

White privilege is seeing that politicians are mainly white men, that the
people often cast as the heroes of movies and TV shows and books are white
men, that nearly everything in society characterizes the "good guy" or the
ideal person as being a white man. (I also hope that you learned about the
history of how people of color, especially black men, where presented in
society.)

It's also why white people are not afraid of being murdered by cops as they
reach for their car registration and insurance. Or as they answer the door to
a belligerent, entitled, drunk, off-duty cop who attempts to B&E into their
home. [1] (This sort of thing never, ever happens to white people.)

The privilege isn't something as superficial as more money: it's significantly
deeper. It's summarized as the notion that being a white man means every
opportunity is available to you and there are no closed doors.

Perhaps a better way to think about it is that white privilege is the absence
of any systematic biases or abuses based upon your gender or skin complexion.

[1] [https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/24/dallas-
police-...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/24/dallas-police-
officer-amber-guyger-fired-killing-neighbor/1413182002/)

------
abnry
If men and women are completely interchangeable, physically and
psychologically, then this article makes a lot of sense.

But if women really do have something different (at least on average) to bring
to the table, then this women really does add diversity.

The purpose of diversity is not quotas, but differences that work together and
add something to the whole.

~~~
albertgoeswoof
I think the point is that the diversity she brings isn’t enough diversity to
justify her as someone who is adding to diversity in a tech company. You could
add 1000s of women like her and the company wouldn’t be particularly
different.

~~~
blueboo
It seems obvious that adding 1000s of women like her would absolutely
meaningfully change the company though

~~~
mantas
Adding 1000 people would change most companies, regardless of what those
people look or think like.

------
trevor-e
Does anyone else find it weird/disturbing that someone is compiling a list of
women engineers and where they work? I understand having a list of influential
speakers and such to look up to, but this does not seem to be the case. The
author mentioned she has no idea how she made it on there.

Link: [https://cristinacordova.github.io/women-
eng/](https://cristinacordova.github.io/women-eng/)

~~~
Jach
Yeah that's kind of weird... I'm reminded of Romney's "notebook full of
women", but at least I don't think the contents were made public?

------
ngngngng
I liked the article, but even her expanded definition of diversity doesn't
resonate completely with me. My brother and I had exactly the same background
and upbringing. And we are both remarkably different people. None of the
metrics of diversity mentioned here would reflect that, but it's reality.

The priority should be diverse people, not diverse backgrounds.

------
zwieback
I think the finer point is that pinning diversity to something specific like
gender works against people that don't _want_ to be viewed as a diversity
candidate. It's hard to get this right and the end goal is that we don't even
talk about diversity anymore but just recognize its benefits.

~~~
creep
Word. I'm a female undergrad in mathematics, and the department is
_constantly_ trying to get me involved with female-oriented STEM events,
offering to sponsor me for "women in STEM"-type conferences, etc etc. I refuse
on principle.

It's well-meaning, probably, but really gets on my nerves sometimes. I want to
be a mathematician, not a "female mathematician". It feels like I have this
bright red sign covering my face that says "FOSTER DIVERSITY HERE". It's okay
guys! I'm already fostered!

------
40acres
I agree with her, diversity is more than just race, sex, sexual preference,
etc. However I would say that I think these things as a top level attribute DO
correlate with different lived experiences that you want in a diverse
workforce.

Companies are not going to ask you about your political leanings, they are
probably not going to give you some mental test to see how you react to
situation A and situation B. If you look at the stats, race and gender do
correlate between stark differences in people. For instance, the "wealth gap"
between black and white Americans is about 10x, growing in poverty vs. growing
up in a stable middle class family causes a different lived experience, you
view the world differently because of how you grew up. That's not to say that
all black people are poor and all white people are rich, but if you're working
with a limited data set and are thinking about how you can get some people in
a room with different lived experiences, you could do a lot worse than saying
"let's get a mix of different races in here". I think the same thing applies
to women and other traits that companies and institutions use for their
diversity metrics.

------
hkai
Interesting that this person does not mention diversity of political opinion,
which seems to be lacking.

~~~
zaccus
That's not something you should ask someone in a job interview though. And
most people (mercifully) don't talk about politics at work. So what would
promoting political diversity look like?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>So what would promoting political diversity look like?

Not ostracizing people for having political opinions that are not the majority
but fairly mainstream.

I work at the satellite office of an east coast tech company and how you have
to be careful not to say anything that betrays politics that are not
officially condoned is a bi-weekly gripe among the group I eat lunch with.

I'm not saying it should be perfectly acceptable to tell your coworkers you
went to a KKK chapter (is that their organizational unit?) barbecue when
discussing what you did over the weekend but if you went to see NASCAR you
shouldn't feel compelled to tell people you stayed home.

~~~
mantas
Is NASCAR uncool now? :(

------
arandr0x
Does it matter who's diversity? If the argument is that a company with a non-
diverse workforce can't deal with users from different walks of life, they
don't have a diversity problem, they have an empathy problem. (Arguably most
programmers have an empathy problem.)

While I'm sure hiring 2 women and 0.2 black people for every scrum team may
help fix the empathy issue, so would hiring white guys who don't think they're
the center of the universe. Of course to do that we'd need to stop (as an
industry) rewarding and recognizing people who think they're the elite for
doing a perfectly normal white-collar job that occasionally involves high
school math.

(And I definitely don't think we need diversity of political opinions. I don't
want to know my coworkers' political opinions, whatever they may be. What
would be great would be if I could get coworkers who just don't think their
particular ideology is super important in terms of their work life. Any
companies that are more on the chill side like this?)

------
kukx
The ultimate diversity is individuality. Stop looking at sex, age and skin
color and start looking at the competence alone.

------
daemonk
This comment might not be relevant to the article.

Isn't diversity ultimately relative to the group you are comparing to? And how
you want to define the group might differ among people? Also how you weigh the
trait in relation to its effect on the some kind of performance metric of the
group?

Someone with trait A could be considered diverse if we define a group with
predominantly trait B. Does having diverse traits (a mix of both A and B)
highly correlated with better performance/survival/whatever metric? Maybe
having diversity means the group can adapt better over time (surviving an
evolutionary bottleneck in some sense)?

Most of these concepts are obviously not quantifiable in this way, but I think
we need some kind of framework to think about how we define diversity.

------
jankotek
Hire remotely if you want diversity...

------
subjectsigma
All this article says to me is that no matter how hard I work or what
decisions I make or what my life experiences are, I'll never be good enough
for progressives. I'll fall "lower" than others on some arbitrary and ever-
changing grading scale which puts value to my experiences.

------
alexashka
_> "I’m not bringing in the diverse perspective that is so critical to the
success of any company."_

Based on what evidence, or even logic, is diversity critical to the success of
even _some_ companies? Let alone _any_ company?

~~~
zhangela
Here are a few articles on why diversity is good for business:

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/18/diverse-teams-are-still-
re...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/18/diverse-teams-are-still-really-good-
for-business-mckinsey-says/)

[https://www.inc.com/ian-altman/5-reasons-why-workplace-
diver...](https://www.inc.com/ian-altman/5-reasons-why-workplace-diversity-is-
good-for-business.html)

~~~
mantas
I wonder if those studies got correlation vs causation correctly. Maybe well-
doing companies have more satellite offices. Or particular cities have become
magnets for people to come do business and have good ecosystem for
kickstarting their growth.

------
mixmastamyk
Agreed, diversity should mean more than simply ethnicity and gender.

Age is one thing she left out, it's great for one's career these days to look
~28.

------
orclthwrawy
I'm kind of surprised by the extent to which people have bought into this
diversity thing, to the point where it's actually literally a thing people
care about. My understanding is that this modern push for diversity and all
the rhetoric surrounding it effectively started as a dogwhistle used by
liberals to push affirmative action in pursuit of social justice without
having to talk about the uncomfortable reality of white privilege and the
controversial politics of social justice and reparations. Diversity is sort of
a cop-out, a way for liberal white people to convince less liberal white
people that affirmative action is the right thing not because white people did
anything wrong ever but because it make white people richer.

Taking this as a serious thing on its own devoid of the political context in
which it became a necessary tactic and getting into the weeds about what truly
is diversity is sort of like the liberal equivalent of taking the Republican
rhetoric about makers and takers, welfare frauds and the need for voter ids
seriously without realizing that these talking points are largely understood
by their audiences to be about black people and immigrants. Seeing the world
through rhetorical devices created specifically to confuse the issues results
in confusion like this entire article. This is not what diversity means to
people for whom it's an important issue.

~~~
orclthwrawy
Otherwise, do we believe the biggest advocates of diversity are just really
passionate about making shareholders richer by getting workers to produce more
at lower costs? That is what makes them push for a more diverse workplace
everywhere? I mean some middle manager somewhere might be convinced that
diversity is an important ingredient for increased productivity and that may
be true for some definition of diversity, but by and large the push for
diversity comes from an entirely different place that is far more about the
politics of gender, race and social justice and the movement that is providing
the actual weight behind this push for diversity doesn't care one bit about
which teams and companies are more productive.

------
fatnoah
I get the point the author is making, but I'm not 100% sure I agree with how
she expressed it. By limiting the definition of diversity/minority, we can
probably identify a cohort for any individual where they are in the majority.

Diversity measured across an entire company or large cohort doesn't really
show the value of diversity in the first place. For me, the real power of
diversity is at a micro-level. The author would absolutely add diversity to a
three person team where one member is an Indian woman born, raised, and
educated to PhD in India, another is a Croatian man with no formal education
beyond secondary school, and the third person was a poor kid from Detroit that
scrapped their way through community college and into the job market.

When I'm putting a team together, I try my hardest to create diversity. That
doesn't mean running through a checklist of gender, ethnicity, sexual
identification, etc. but it does mean looking for people with different points
of view, experience, and ways of solving problems.

tl;dr: Diversity == good, agree gender doesn't necessarily mean diversity,
diversity is a meaningless term without context.

~~~
Kalium
I think checklists get favored because they're easy to codify in the form of
procedures and business processes. They're also easy to measure and report on.

The broader, more complex concerns you point to are difficult to measure and
thus perhaps more likely to be given short shrift.

~~~
fatnoah
All excellent points. It's definitely not press-release material, but (IMHO)
highlights how things should be. Companies would naturally reach the desired
levels of "diversity" if they simply practiced it at a micro level. Certainly
some teams would look "unbalanced" by some of the traditional metrics, but I
think everything would even out on the larger scale.

An interesting anecdote was that I led Engineering for a startup that was
acquired by a large ($50-100 Billion) company. After we were acquired, several
people commented on my collective team as being the "most diverse" in the
company. That was nice to hear, but (for me) the most gratifying part was the
team members taking stock and collectively thinking "oh yeah, I guess we are
diverse!" It happened on purpose, but with the intention of using diversity as
a source of strength not as a means of checking off a box.

~~~
Kalium
Thinking about this further, something else comes to mind.

One of the other things worth considering is that failing to comply with
checklist-driven diversity can land you in court for supposed discrimination,
where the traditional metrics matter quite a bit and other approaches matter
not at all. Between liability and ease of implementation and measurement, it's
definitely going to be privileged over other approaches.

------
leephillips
This article is part of the problem. By pointing out that she does not
contribute to "diversity" because of her economic and cultural background, the
author reinforces the idea that those are the interesting ingredients of this
elusive "diversity." She says nothing about her ideas, interests, or opinions.
Does she perhaps add to diversity by having original thoughts? Or are her
political opinions and taste in music predictable? I'd say this article is
evidence that she may in fact possess some intellectual diversity, but that it
is something that she herself does not recognize as such.

~~~
fatnoah
You said (in a much better way) part of what I was trying to say in another
post. She reduces herself to bullet points and ignores all of the things that
I would consider critical parts of what makes people different. Upon a reread,
I think that was her point. Measuring diversity based on a few predefined
attributes makes no sense. Creating diversity by hiring someone because
they're female isn't the answer, we need to go beyond that to truly have
diversity.

~~~
zhangela
Thank you for your thoughtful response!

>>> Measuring diversity based on a few predefined attributes makes no sense.
Creating diversity by hiring someone because they're female isn't the answer,
we need to go beyond that to truly have diversity.

I think I might have been a tad overdramatic by just saying "I'm not
diversity" in the title, but what you wrote above there is exactly what I'm
trying to communicate: diversity is more than just bullet points, we need to
see it more holistically.

------
ousta
She doesn't know what is it to suffer from diversity. Elizabeth Warren has
0.0001% things to say about that.

