
Push for Gender Equality in Tech? Some Men Say It’s Gone Too Far - mulcahey
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html
======
PrimalDual
So there are somethings I don’t quite understand about the pro-diversity
argument. My understanding of the claim is that companies should want to have
a diverse workforce because people of different backgrounds are fundamentally
different. Different to the point that without inclusion of all their
viewpoints you will fail to optimally solve some problems. It makes sense that
if you don’t have enough women in tech your company, may fail to notice
opportunities that cater specifically to women. Still, if women, men and
people of different ethnicities and races all have such fundamentally
different backgrounds, why would you expect them all to choose the same fields
in the same proportion? Furthermore, is proportional representation necessary
to achieve optimal gains from having diverse viewpoints?

~~~
edanm
I disagree with your post, and a lot of other commenters on here, as to the
primary reason for the pro-diversity argument.

The reason promoting diversity (e.g. in tech) is good is because there is a
shortage of qualified people. If we have certain populations that _could_ work
in the field, but _don 't_, for whatever reason, then we want to find those
causes and stop them. And if those causes are historical (e.g. past
discrimination), we might even go so far as to take that into account.

E.g. take affirmative action for African Americans (in America). Yes, it's
partially there to have equal opportunity. But (perhaps more) importantly, we
know that because of past diversity, most African Americans have a harder time
in education growing up. This probably shows up as people have e.g. lower
scores on tests. But what we should be thinking is: "If they got slightly
lower scores, but we know that it was _harder_ for them, then imagine what
they could do if we help them out with better education!".

One could argue (and other commenters do so) that we should care more about
the moral "everyone should have equal opportunities" argument. I agree, but I
much prefer to show why diversity tends to be a win-win, not a "you lose so we
can win" situation.

~~~
whitemale
> The reason promoting diversity (e.g. in tech) is good is because there is a
> shortage of qualified people.

Are you implying that for some reason we don't hire qualified women if there
are no men to fill in the roles? Would love to see your sources.

> If we have certain populations that could work in the field

Why not look to see how can we get more white men to work in the field?

> , but don't, for whatever reason, then we want to find those causes and stop
> them.

What if it's cheaper to just get more men instead?

> Yes, it's partially there to have equal opportunity.

It's not equal opportunity, white people won't get it.

> But (perhaps more) importantly, we know that because of past diversity, most
> African Americans have a harder time in education growing up.

I've heard it's because of socialism, can you prove that that's not the case?

> This probably shows up as people have e.g. lower scores on tests.

Me having a lower score on a test, doesn't mean that it's because I was
historically oppressed.

> imagine what they could do if we help them out with better education!

Imagine if education would be just be better in general for all, I wouldn't
leave out the uneducated white men.

> I agree, but I much prefer to show why diversity tends to be a win-win, not
> a "you lose so we can win" situation.

I have yet to see any solid evidence why having a majority white male tech
population is a bad thing(and I'm not even going to get into the are Asians
white or not argument).

Overall my issue with your point of view is that I have yet to see any proof
for anything that it's based on. Most people with your point of view will
point to some statistics that are convenient to them (earnings of all women
vs. men) and ignore inconvenient ones(male vs. female mortality rate) and
interpret it the way they want it (we less women in tech, must be because of
sexism).

------
cwackerfuss
It's sad to see men regressing at the idea of diversity in tech. It can't just
be a boys club. The value in employment diversity is that we give people of
all backgrounds a fair shot at opportunities. IMO it's actually a very complex
issue strategically leveling the playing field.

At Google, something like only 1 in 5 tech workers are female, and their
diversity practices are fairly extreme compared to the norm. It's logically
more difficult to find qualified female coders because there are less of them
applying for positions. REQUIRING a certain benchmark of females to be hired
each month or year, when HR is picking from a much smaller candidate pool, is
going to result in hiring potentially less qualified individuals. That could
actually cause a greater gender bias if women are being hired to hit a metric
but potentially performing at a lower quality than their male counterparts. I
say "potentially" because obviously there are a ton of great female coders,
but there are a lot of shoddy ones too. Same with men.

As an example: You have ten applicants for one position. 2 are female, 8 are
male. Just for fun, lets say "33% of all programmers, male and female, produce
good code and have a qualifying resume". The chances that you will have a
qualified male candidate are going to be greater based on those two facts
alone. If you need to hit a 50% men/50% women hiring metric, you're taking a
gamble on the work quality of women hired.

~BUT~: WE HAVE TO OFFER STRONGER INCENTIVES FOR WOMEN IN TECH IN ORDER FOR THE
PLAYING FIELD TO BE LEVELED. Future female coders aren't going to feel
inspired or motivated to enter a workforce that's dominated by men. The
solution sometimes looks faulty when viewed on a case-by-case basis, but we
need to offer an olive branch in the form of better job placement
opportunities until women are inspired to pursue tech and have equal rights
and job prospects.

~~~
CyberDildonics
No one is 'regressing' at the idea of diversity in tech. Framing it that way
is a huge part of the problem and phenomenally disingenuous and simplistic.

The divide is really whether you want force extra diversity at the expense of
a meritocracy or if you want a meritocracy. With all the 'more women' vs.
'boys club' nonsense, a person not thinking critically could forget that some
people want to work with the best people so they can do the best work and all
the labels in between don't mean shit. If that ends up being more women or any
other group that is a minority in tech it makes a tiny difference compared to
being able to really achieve something meaningful.

~~~
cwackerfuss
I'm actually saying basically same thing in the middle part of my response.
But meritocracies sometimes need to take a hard look in the mirror and admit
cognitive biases and tweak the dials accordingly.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Your post actually argued we should introduce cognitive biases, and hire
unequally.

Framing doing that as supporting gender equality is the Orwellian doublespeak
that people are starting to object to -- you can support diversity without
supporting hiring on the basis of race, gender, etc.

------
deepnotderp
One interesting thing of note is that Warren Farrell used to be a feminist.

------
egwynn
This sounds like a lot of smoke and no fire to me. Are men having trouble
finding jobs in tech because of their gender? Is _Damore_ even having trouble
finding a job in tech despite his claims that he’s the target of a witch hunt?
Was there some kind of law passed that forces tech companies to hire more
women?

------
OnlyTruth2
We live in a democracy, women have the vote, they are politically powerful.
When they decree that they shall be paid the same as men even though they work
less and produce less, well, they shall be paid the same. Votes equal power,
ability does not equal power, at least not as much power as votes do.

------
GnwbZHiU
I think it's not gone too far; It's gone astray.

------
eevilspock
Why is this flagged? That HN or HN users would flag gives even more credence
to criticism of tech culture, its sexism and denialism.

------
talindras
Shame the author shows their bias so very clearly.

------
grondilu
Today on HN I've learnt about KaTeX, a math typesetting system for the web[1].
As I looked into it, I was intrigued by the names of the two authors, which
suggested they are females. That looked odd to me, as I thought typically this
kind of project is made by men.

The last time I had this kind of surprise was with Audrey Tang, the developer
of Pugs, an early Perl 6 implementation. Turned out she was not born female.

So, just by curiosity, I looked into the authors of this KaTeX thing. To my
amusement, I guessed well : at least one of them is a trans[2].

There are certain kinds of IT projects in which women are formidably rare. I
can't quite put my finger on what kind of projects I'm talking about, but
let's just say it's a case of "I know it when I see it".

At some point we should consider admitting that there is something, I don't
know what, that draws men towards this kind of projects much more than for
women. And that this thing, whatever it is, may be a reason for the observed
gender disparities in the tech industry.

1\. [https://github.com/Khan/KaTeX](https://github.com/Khan/KaTeX)

2\. [https://sophiebits.com/2017/08/26/hi-im-
trans.html](https://sophiebits.com/2017/08/26/hi-im-trans.html)

~~~
UnpossibleJim
It might help if it were not frowned upon to admit that women and men are
different, and that isn't a bad thing. Male nurses are still a rarity, and
that's ok (though, all nurses, regardless of sex, should get paid more).
Different doesn't mean better or worse, just different. Is a frog better than
a toad? Well, what situation are you asking about? Are women better than men?
Well, what situation are we talking about? (And, yes, I just compared men and
women to frogs and toads, because no hidden reason whatsoever...)

~~~
geebee
Registered nurses, at the median in SF, earn about $133k a year (check US News
"Best Jobs" for a roundup of regional BLS data).

I'm absolutely OK with nurses earning good salaries but I do think people are
often surprised to hear how much nurses actually do earn.

~~~
UnpossibleJim
That is significantly better than I thought =) I'll dial back my
disappointment, a bit.

------
the_evacuator
I wish threads about this clown would get disappeared down the HN memory hole
the same way threads about Trump get handled.

~~~
jimmaswell
This comment made me upvote the post. There are legitimate issues being
brought up and I'm glad they're not automatically silenced on here.

~~~
the_evacuator
There are also legitimate issues being brought up in other political posts but
they have been banned anyway.

