
“Why do women try to get ahead by pulling men down?” - bconway
https://medium.com/ladybits-on-medium/a1345b36b91b
======
rayiner
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?

~~~
angersock
_" 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.

~~~
rayiner
I think a lot of ambitious people would rather get the top spot in medicine
than hit a glass ceiling in engineering.

~~~
angersock
Which is a shame, because effort spent in medicine doesn't scale.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
kamaal
Very similar patterns of problems exist in every career. Grass always looks
greener on the other end.

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.

------
carlyle4545
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. :-)

~~~
rayiner
> 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.

------
oconnore
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?

~~~
sliverstorm
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!"

~~~
hawleyal
Are you denying men have ever benefited from privilege?

\- 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.

~~~
sliverstorm
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.

~~~
wpietri
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.

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...](http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-
difficulty-setting-there-is/)

------
dbecker
_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?

~~~
king_jester
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).

~~~
dbecker
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."

------
john_b
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.

~~~
portmanteaufu
> 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.

------
sbjustin
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.

~~~
tghw
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.

~~~
theorique
However, there do exist a number of built-in, biological differences between
male and female brains - see, e.g. [pdf]
[http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toanatj/articles/V002/37T...](http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toanatj/articles/V002/37TOANATJ.pdf)

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.

------
raganwald
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.

~~~
munificent
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.

~~~
raganwald
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.

~~~
munificent
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.

------
drharris
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?

~~~
king_jester
> 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.

~~~
drharris
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.

------
venomsnake
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.

------
seferphier
"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.

------
MetaCosm
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.

~~~
wpietri
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.

------
patmcguire
This is how the stereotype of men not getting metaphors gets started.

------
login1234
> mostly white

stopped reading there

~~~
MDCore
Tech is VERY white. Take a look around during the next conference you visit.

If you want something more objective, this US-centric chart seems to be a good
example: <http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm>

~~~
theorique
Also: Asian. Lots of Indian and Oriental men in tech too.

But you're right that the 20something hipster demo in tech definitely skews to
the white.

------
nlindig
I went looking for some examples of male privilege. These might be helpful in
understanding why the escalators are going the directions they are:
<http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf>

------
fatjokes
That was a really tortured metaphor.

------
monkey13
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.

------
portmanteaufu
> 2\. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?

I never got past this. I would imagine that in a two-story building full of
analytical people, someone would have questioned this immediately.

------
127001brewer
Breadwinner in 40% of U.S. Families Is a Woman, Study Finds[1]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-
as-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-
breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html?hp)

~~~
king_jester
From the very article you provided:

"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.

------
Hinrik
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.

------
rachelbythebay
49 minutes old, and no longer on the front page.

I can't find it in the first 200 submissions, even.

~~~
raganwald
Ho hum... <https://twitter.com/raganwald/status/339816065297174528>

------
cunac
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.

~~~
venomsnake
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"

~~~
cunac
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.

------
taylodl
_If more men learned to put away their privilege_

Stopped me cold. Maybe that mindset worked in the 1960s but this is the
twenty-teens and that "privilege" left long ago.

------
canibanoglu
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.

