Tech is the best industry for women(medium.com)
medium.com
Tech is the best industry for women
https://medium.com/@lilychendances/tech-is-the-best-industry-for-women-f15a95a84d6f
192 comments
I don't think that any of these examples show that Bay Area tech is a meritocracy or inclusive. The truth is the tech community has a culture and almost all the things you mentioned are almost stereotypical parts of it. These all fit within the tech culture:
* Going to burning man
* Going to SXSW
* Working with the LGBT community
* Tattoos / Dyed hair
* Pole dancing
* Wearing Stan Smiths
* Being obsessed with high end coffee
You shouldn't be patting yourself on the back that tech accepts these things. I've seen terrible examples of the community not accepting:
* Those who believe in gun rights
* Those who are strongly religious
* Those who are homeless
* Those who are lower class
* Those who are H-1Bs (Indian outsourcing bias)
* Those who are Republican
* Those who are black
* Those who are old / have grey hair
Being inclusive and meritocratic doesn't mean accepting things that are within your culture. It means accepting those that are outside. I remember a colleague talking about a Dropbox all hands meeting where every one was patting themselves on the backs because the recruiting team had hired many from the LGBT community. He looked at me and said "Why the f* is everyone so happy? We literally have 1 black person in a company of almost 1,000"
Seriously, if you think that having colleagues having dyed hair or going to Burning man is proof that you are meritocratic or inclusive you are in a huge bubble.
* Going to burning man
* Going to SXSW
* Working with the LGBT community
* Tattoos / Dyed hair
* Pole dancing
* Wearing Stan Smiths
* Being obsessed with high end coffee
You shouldn't be patting yourself on the back that tech accepts these things. I've seen terrible examples of the community not accepting:
* Those who believe in gun rights
* Those who are strongly religious
* Those who are homeless
* Those who are lower class
* Those who are H-1Bs (Indian outsourcing bias)
* Those who are Republican
* Those who are black
* Those who are old / have grey hair
Being inclusive and meritocratic doesn't mean accepting things that are within your culture. It means accepting those that are outside. I remember a colleague talking about a Dropbox all hands meeting where every one was patting themselves on the backs because the recruiting team had hired many from the LGBT community. He looked at me and said "Why the f* is everyone so happy? We literally have 1 black person in a company of almost 1,000"
Seriously, if you think that having colleagues having dyed hair or going to Burning man is proof that you are meritocratic or inclusive you are in a huge bubble.
:[ I'm a gun-shooting libertarian. Don't assume my Tribe.
You're right, the "tech tribe" does have improvements to make in inclusivity, but at least it's a home for some people who would otherwise be outcasts in socially conservative businesses.
As for a few things:
- I think we're just as accepting of blacks, our high school education system has just utterly failed them so much that we don't have a good pipeline for getting black people into tech.
- There are a different set of values in India that cause some clash between them and Americans/Westerns. There's the culture of following the letter of the request/task, rather than the spirit of the request/task. (Similarly but differently, mainland Chinese suck at asking questions when they don't understand something.) But my overall biggest complaints with outsourced contractors is a culture of "get shit done fast, and do any hacks to get it done". Because contractors don't stay with projects for the long-term, it's not surprising.
- The homeless and lower class are, almost by definition, not people who are achieving a ton. Tech is a meritocracy, we respect getting shit done, and we're not a jobs program.
You're right, the "tech tribe" does have improvements to make in inclusivity, but at least it's a home for some people who would otherwise be outcasts in socially conservative businesses.
As for a few things:
- I think we're just as accepting of blacks, our high school education system has just utterly failed them so much that we don't have a good pipeline for getting black people into tech.
- There are a different set of values in India that cause some clash between them and Americans/Westerns. There's the culture of following the letter of the request/task, rather than the spirit of the request/task. (Similarly but differently, mainland Chinese suck at asking questions when they don't understand something.) But my overall biggest complaints with outsourced contractors is a culture of "get shit done fast, and do any hacks to get it done". Because contractors don't stay with projects for the long-term, it's not surprising.
- The homeless and lower class are, almost by definition, not people who are achieving a ton. Tech is a meritocracy, we respect getting shit done, and we're not a jobs program.
I agree that tech has been a haven for some who would be outcasts in other areas. Specifically the LGBT community.
To address your other points:
* I don't buy the pipeline argument. I've seen huge bias is how the tech community treats blacks. For example, I've seen a few black colleagues try to transfer into software engineering and get huge amounts of push back. Ironically I did the same thing (transfer from product management to dev) and I was supported. Why was I treated differently? Probably because I'm Indian so I am supposed to be a developer. In all the interviews I do, people assume I have a CS degree and lots of experience even though my resume says the complete opposite. I benefit a lot from the assumptions around my skin color while a black person gets the opposite experience.
* I get why people don't like offshore centers but that doesn't mean they should assume there aren't some very talented H1B developers. I have seen many. India has some of the best computer science programs in the world.
* I don't understand your comment on the homeless but the point I was trying to make was that verbally insulting poor people, the homeless, or old people is not inclusive or meritocratic. I've seen many examples of that in the tech community. I'm not asking people in tech to give free jobs to the homeless I'm asking people not to verbally insult them.
To address your other points:
* I don't buy the pipeline argument. I've seen huge bias is how the tech community treats blacks. For example, I've seen a few black colleagues try to transfer into software engineering and get huge amounts of push back. Ironically I did the same thing (transfer from product management to dev) and I was supported. Why was I treated differently? Probably because I'm Indian so I am supposed to be a developer. In all the interviews I do, people assume I have a CS degree and lots of experience even though my resume says the complete opposite. I benefit a lot from the assumptions around my skin color while a black person gets the opposite experience.
* I get why people don't like offshore centers but that doesn't mean they should assume there aren't some very talented H1B developers. I have seen many. India has some of the best computer science programs in the world.
* I don't understand your comment on the homeless but the point I was trying to make was that verbally insulting poor people, the homeless, or old people is not inclusive or meritocratic. I've seen many examples of that in the tech community. I'm not asking people in tech to give free jobs to the homeless I'm asking people not to verbally insult them.
Some homelessness is due to untreated mental illness. Some homeless is due to other factors I am largely ignoring that, intentionally.
Tech is all about mental aptitude. Some mental health issues interfere with the required skills and some do not. Someone with ADD, bipolar or impostor syndrome is not strongly adversely affected, while someone with dissociative schizophrenia and cannot make decisions that keep sheltered will not succeed in tech and might not even with proper treatment.
What can tech do to better reach out to people who are homeless because they have mental issues that impact their decision making so much as to destroy their ability to maintain shelter? This problem is too big for a company to handle we need cultural and government change to address that.
I don't know what is up with your black colleagure, could you expand on that? I went from being a shitty programmer to a decent because a black programmer taught me a few key lessons about how to think, so there are at least a few mixed in with us.
I think tech is about as inclusive as it can be barring isolated exceptions.
Tech is all about mental aptitude. Some mental health issues interfere with the required skills and some do not. Someone with ADD, bipolar or impostor syndrome is not strongly adversely affected, while someone with dissociative schizophrenia and cannot make decisions that keep sheltered will not succeed in tech and might not even with proper treatment.
What can tech do to better reach out to people who are homeless because they have mental issues that impact their decision making so much as to destroy their ability to maintain shelter? This problem is too big for a company to handle we need cultural and government change to address that.
I don't know what is up with your black colleagure, could you expand on that? I went from being a shitty programmer to a decent because a black programmer taught me a few key lessons about how to think, so there are at least a few mixed in with us.
I think tech is about as inclusive as it can be barring isolated exceptions.
Downvoted without rebuttal. :(
If I am wrong, then please tell me. I even asked for more information on something I was unsure of.
If I am wrong, then please tell me. I even asked for more information on something I was unsure of.
> The homeless and lower class are, almost by definition, not people who are achieving a ton.
:(
:(
What does it even mean to respond to the criticism of how the tech industry treats black people to say "the high school system is failing them"? Aren't you describing, and excusing in yourself, the essence of prejudice? Individual black people who are being mistreated in our industry are not stand-ins for whatever phenomenon of all black life in America we happen to believe in.
[deleted]
> Being inclusive and meritocratic doesn't mean accepting things that are within your culture.
I think there's some subtle definition creep in the word "inclusive" these days. It's starting to mean "cosmopolitan". I recall the recent STEM girl scouts story. One of the commenters called the initiative "inclusive", which isn't quite the right. It's the same girls scouts doing something different, so it's not more inclusive, really. Beneficial? Sure. Eclectic? Yeah. Progressive? OK. Inclusive? I'm not following.
I think there's some subtle definition creep in the word "inclusive" these days. It's starting to mean "cosmopolitan". I recall the recent STEM girl scouts story. One of the commenters called the initiative "inclusive", which isn't quite the right. It's the same girls scouts doing something different, so it's not more inclusive, really. Beneficial? Sure. Eclectic? Yeah. Progressive? OK. Inclusive? I'm not following.
> It's the same girls scouts doing something different
Alternatively, it's a change by scout leadership which broadens the set of interests to which the Girl Scouts appeal, increasing the diversity of the population the scouts will be able to recruit and retain.
Hence, inclusive.
Alternatively, it's a change by scout leadership which broadens the set of interests to which the Girl Scouts appeal, increasing the diversity of the population the scouts will be able to recruit and retain.
Hence, inclusive.
Hmmm... maybe. There's a sense of immediacy to 'inclusive', though. Like someone is already included. What you're describing is more like 'hospitable' or 'inviting' or, again, 'eclectic'.
> There's a sense of immediacy to 'inclusive', though.
Perhals, but there's no reason the recruitment and retention effect on people with the interests it addresses would not be, at least to some extent, immediate.
Perhals, but there's no reason the recruitment and retention effect on people with the interests it addresses would not be, at least to some extent, immediate.
I work in a software development and we have someone with every item on the 2nd list except someone who is homeless (we might, but I would have expected that to come up).
Tech is hugely accepting. It is too easy to be punished by putting out bad products, so people put aside that which doesn't matter for the product and get to work. Skipping people for any of these reasons could mean not hiring the right person. Any team without enough of the right talent fails in the marketplace.
Tech is hugely accepting. It is too easy to be punished by putting out bad products, so people put aside that which doesn't matter for the product and get to work. Skipping people for any of these reasons could mean not hiring the right person. Any team without enough of the right talent fails in the marketplace.
I would contend that whether a group is more or less inclusive does not solely depend on whether they have failed to include the homeless, black people, old people, religious people, etc.
It depends on whether the parameters of your group accepts more people, and another measure might look at whether or not your group accepts more kinds of people, or some weighted balance.
Also, if we were to add in some choice examples, I'd look at how the teaching profession treats LGBT people. Such people are under risk of being considered pedophiles. It's probably a career-killer, and any administration that backs that teacher would need strength to resist parents.
It depends on whether the parameters of your group accepts more people, and another measure might look at whether or not your group accepts more kinds of people, or some weighted balance.
Also, if we were to add in some choice examples, I'd look at how the teaching profession treats LGBT people. Such people are under risk of being considered pedophiles. It's probably a career-killer, and any administration that backs that teacher would need strength to resist parents.
the problem is that liberals in the tech industries loves to pick and choose what constitutes as diversity while pretending that it accepts everyone.
Lol, really?
Tell that to software engineers past the age of 50.
Look, every industry has its pros and cons. Sure tech is good for the Burning Man crowd (if you live in the Bay Area or other major American liberal city), but it certainly suffers from a ton of ageism, among other maladies.
I think it all comes down to what sort of industry you personally feel more comfortable in. For me, that's tech, but if my conservative Christian grandmother were alive today she sure as heck wouldn't be comfortable in the Bay Area tech scene.
Whenever you find yourself patting yourself on your back for being inclusive, just do the math - is your group really inclusive or is it just symbolically signifying inclusiveness?
Tell that to software engineers past the age of 50.
Look, every industry has its pros and cons. Sure tech is good for the Burning Man crowd (if you live in the Bay Area or other major American liberal city), but it certainly suffers from a ton of ageism, among other maladies.
I think it all comes down to what sort of industry you personally feel more comfortable in. For me, that's tech, but if my conservative Christian grandmother were alive today she sure as heck wouldn't be comfortable in the Bay Area tech scene.
Whenever you find yourself patting yourself on your back for being inclusive, just do the math - is your group really inclusive or is it just symbolically signifying inclusiveness?
> Tell that to software engineers past the age of 50.
Come work at a BigCorp. Here at Microsoft, every age range is represented, W/L balance is great (people supporting online services who are responsible for The Phone that week aside), and every team I have been on strives for diversity and inclusion.
That said, is it a pure meritocracy? Of course not, people who play politics and are good at getting assigned to high visibility projects get promoted faster. But good work is rewarded, and people are generally quite happy.
Edit: The food isn't free, but the on campus medical clinic, summer farmers market, and other tiny perks that come from having a huge and expansive campus set amongst what looks like woodlands, more than balances it out.
And, regardless of gender, no one will bat an eye if you go at 4:00pm to pick up your kids.
Come work at a BigCorp. Here at Microsoft, every age range is represented, W/L balance is great (people supporting online services who are responsible for The Phone that week aside), and every team I have been on strives for diversity and inclusion.
That said, is it a pure meritocracy? Of course not, people who play politics and are good at getting assigned to high visibility projects get promoted faster. But good work is rewarded, and people are generally quite happy.
Edit: The food isn't free, but the on campus medical clinic, summer farmers market, and other tiny perks that come from having a huge and expansive campus set amongst what looks like woodlands, more than balances it out.
And, regardless of gender, no one will bat an eye if you go at 4:00pm to pick up your kids.
x2
BigCorps also have stability which "old" people need to support their families, especially when the kids are going to college.
BigCorps also have stability which "old" people need to support their families, especially when the kids are going to college.
x3+
I have contracted with numerous companies with old engineers. Insurance, Embedded Appliances and Defense had a reasonable distribution ages.
I have contracted with numerous companies with old engineers. Insurance, Embedded Appliances and Defense had a reasonable distribution ages.
[deleted]
You're right, politics & age are major caveats. As someone who voted for Gary Johnson and laughed when Clinton lost, I definitely feel the lack of inclusion at times.
It's a nice sentiment, but tech is very far from any sort of meritocracy. Falsely believing that it is a meritocracy can do more harm than good.
I'm not trying to be negative towards your experience --- I'm glad you have a happy perception of the industry --- I just want to reinforce how important it is for us to improve diversity in all its forms before we start congratulating ourselves.
I'm not trying to be negative towards your experience --- I'm glad you have a happy perception of the industry --- I just want to reinforce how important it is for us to improve diversity in all its forms before we start congratulating ourselves.
Getting a job is mostly meritocratic.
1. Many companies have a low interview bar. Anyone with a CS BS degree can get an interview at at least a few good companies. If not, you can spend time creating interesting Github projects to boost your chances.
2. Your performance in the interview usually depends on the amount of time you spend studying algorithms.
3. Most knowledge and skills in the industry can be found one click away. General software engineering jobs are self-learnable as long as you have an internet service and a web browsing device.
1. Many companies have a low interview bar. Anyone with a CS BS degree can get an interview at at least a few good companies. If not, you can spend time creating interesting Github projects to boost your chances.
2. Your performance in the interview usually depends on the amount of time you spend studying algorithms.
3. Most knowledge and skills in the industry can be found one click away. General software engineering jobs are self-learnable as long as you have an internet service and a web browsing device.
That assessment leaves out the time and resources necessary to sustain yourself while you build knowledge and an open source portfolio.
Additionally, networking plays a huge role in who hears about a job opportunity, who gets interviewed and who gets hired.
Additionally, networking plays a huge role in who hears about a job opportunity, who gets interviewed and who gets hired.
Which industries do you think are MORE meritocratic than tech?
Tech's not perfect, but I think they do it better than most (all?).
Tech's not perfect, but I think they do it better than most (all?).
Professional sports are much more meritocratic than the tech industry.
> Which industries do you think are MORE meritocratic than tech?
None of them are, but tech isn't any better.
None of them are, but tech isn't any better.
You're saying all industries are equally meritocratic? That seems hard to believe.
no, i'm saying none of them are particularly so, and none stands out as much more so than any other.
Is it hard to believe that no industry is very meritocratic at all?
[deleted]
Sure - any industry that employs only True Scotsmen.
Sports? Music?
I'm not really sure if music is all that meritocratic. In some circles, sure, but the mainstream seems to be dominated by pretty faces propped up by major labels.
This does seem to be changing for the better thanks to the Internet, but there's still a very long way to go.
This does seem to be changing for the better thanks to the Internet, but there's still a very long way to go.
> I'm not really sure if music is all that meritocratic.
One thing for sure is that no industry in the world is all that meritocratic. But Music and Sports (even with the mainstream whitewash) for sure has a better social and racial distribution than any other industry I can think of.
One thing for sure is that no industry in the world is all that meritocratic. But Music and Sports (even with the mainstream whitewash) for sure has a better social and racial distribution than any other industry I can think of.
I mostly agree but the Brendan Eich firing and the dongle joke kerfuffle are counterfactuals. Or, taking a group example instead of individuals, "brogrammers".
I think you can be unpopular or stick out in a lot of ways and still be successful, but I don't think it's as simple as come-as-you-are. You'll do fine (I'm sure Eich is personally fine) but you can easily hit some challenges along the way.
I think you can be unpopular or stick out in a lot of ways and still be successful, but I don't think it's as simple as come-as-you-are. You'll do fine (I'm sure Eich is personally fine) but you can easily hit some challenges along the way.
Tech is inclusive, accepting and weird as long as you're a liberal aged 40 and under.
Exactly. I'm liberal but I'm still astounded by the vitrol, hate, and language my colleagues use to describe conservatives and Republicans.
Inclusion means accepting people as people, not accepting just the people who look, talk, and share the same beliefs as you.
Inclusion means accepting people as people, not accepting just the people who look, talk, and share the same beliefs as you.
And meritocracy should mean none of that matters. Tech has a long traditional preference for leftist, anarchist and liberal politics and "non-conformist" behavior, but those are more about tribalism and value signaling and, ironically, conformity than merit. You can be a hoodie wearing, blue-haired transgendered commie and still write terrible code.
[deleted]
> Inclusion means accepting people as people, not accepting just the people who look, talk, and share the same beliefs as you.
No. There are some beliefs that run counter to our societies ideals. Those beliefs and the people who espouse them should be shunned. Harshly.
Sorry you (theoretical Republican) don't think Gay people should be allowed to get married. Keep your backward ass beliefs to yourself.
No. There are some beliefs that run counter to our societies ideals. Those beliefs and the people who espouse them should be shunned. Harshly.
Sorry you (theoretical Republican) don't think Gay people should be allowed to get married. Keep your backward ass beliefs to yourself.
Well I think you've just proved my point. Not all Republicans are against gay marriage. In fact around 40% support gay marriage: http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay...
And I think using "backward ass beliefs" to describe Republicans seems pretty bigoted to me. It certainly doesn't win over the 40% who do support gay marriage from working with you and it excludes half of the country.
And I think using "backward ass beliefs" to describe Republicans seems pretty bigoted to me. It certainly doesn't win over the 40% who do support gay marriage from working with you and it excludes half of the country.
Just because tech doesn't tolerate neo-nazis doesn't mean it's not inclusive. Being inclusive, in my opinion, does not mean that one needs to tolerate every belief and every opinion and treat them as equal. IMO inclusivity has more to do with being accepting of people regardless of their unchangeable aspects (skin color, age, orientation, gender, etc.)
> It certainly doesn't win over the 40% who do support gay marriage from working with you and it excludes half of the country.
We're not trying to convince bigoted people to not be bigoted here. We're trying to cultivate a work place that doesn't discriminate against most people, and that _probably_ means that we can't tolerate certain bigoted beliefs. In my mind, not hiring someone who doesn't like gay people is quite similar to not hiring a jerk.
> It certainly doesn't win over the 40% who do support gay marriage from working with you and it excludes half of the country.
We're not trying to convince bigoted people to not be bigoted here. We're trying to cultivate a work place that doesn't discriminate against most people, and that _probably_ means that we can't tolerate certain bigoted beliefs. In my mind, not hiring someone who doesn't like gay people is quite similar to not hiring a jerk.
I'm confused. Are you saying that a company should not hire a Republicans because some Republicans are anti-gay?
The OP called Republicans "backward ass belie[vers]" for not supporting gay marriage. I responded by saying that was a bigoted statement and doesn't make sense because 40% of Republicans do support gay marriage. The OP's larger point was basically that we should shun Republicans because of their "backward ass beliefs". I never mentioned that we should include anti gay workers, I didn't even mention gays. I just said we should be inclusive of Republicans. Are you agreeing with the OP's original assertion that we should shun Republicans?
Let me give another example. I am a male and I am not attracted to overweight / obese females. So I actively discriminate against overweight people in my dating life. It does not affect how I treat overweight people in any other aspect of my life, including my workplace. If I had a public dating profile which says I preferred petite females would that be grounds to not hire me? Or to give another equivalent scenario, if I was a female who discriminated against short males in dating would that be grounds to not hire me? Or to go further, would you think its fine for the tech community to blacklist people who voted for Trump?
There's something deeply troubling to me about going down that rabbit hole. That people can make such blanket statements about an entire political party, esp the party of Abraham Lincoln.
To me as a Bengali, it's no different from my parents stating "Well Pakistanis want us dead. They conducted a genocide of us 50 years ago and they feel no different. Don't cultivate relationships with them"
NO. You don't do that. You judge individuals by the individual. Not by the their political affiliation, not by their race, not by their sexuality, gender, etc.
You don't say "let's not hire this person because they are Republican and Republicans hate gays". You evaluate the individual and if you think the individual would not create a good environment for your gay workers you don't hire them. But you do that regardless of their party. I know plenty of Democrats who are bigoted, racist, or homophobic.
Seriously, this feels like a liberal version of McCarthyism.
The OP called Republicans "backward ass belie[vers]" for not supporting gay marriage. I responded by saying that was a bigoted statement and doesn't make sense because 40% of Republicans do support gay marriage. The OP's larger point was basically that we should shun Republicans because of their "backward ass beliefs". I never mentioned that we should include anti gay workers, I didn't even mention gays. I just said we should be inclusive of Republicans. Are you agreeing with the OP's original assertion that we should shun Republicans?
Let me give another example. I am a male and I am not attracted to overweight / obese females. So I actively discriminate against overweight people in my dating life. It does not affect how I treat overweight people in any other aspect of my life, including my workplace. If I had a public dating profile which says I preferred petite females would that be grounds to not hire me? Or to give another equivalent scenario, if I was a female who discriminated against short males in dating would that be grounds to not hire me? Or to go further, would you think its fine for the tech community to blacklist people who voted for Trump?
There's something deeply troubling to me about going down that rabbit hole. That people can make such blanket statements about an entire political party, esp the party of Abraham Lincoln.
To me as a Bengali, it's no different from my parents stating "Well Pakistanis want us dead. They conducted a genocide of us 50 years ago and they feel no different. Don't cultivate relationships with them"
NO. You don't do that. You judge individuals by the individual. Not by the their political affiliation, not by their race, not by their sexuality, gender, etc.
You don't say "let's not hire this person because they are Republican and Republicans hate gays". You evaluate the individual and if you think the individual would not create a good environment for your gay workers you don't hire them. But you do that regardless of their party. I know plenty of Democrats who are bigoted, racist, or homophobic.
Seriously, this feels like a liberal version of McCarthyism.
> Or to go further, would you think its fine for the tech community to blacklist people who voted for Trump?
It depends. If you wear a MAGA hat to work at this point, I wouldn't mind if you were fired for it. Keep that bigoted shit to yourself. If you wear that hat at this point, you're, in my mind, actively discriminating against certain parts of our population and deserve 0 respect from peers. I would want you out of my workplace. If you voted for him and keep to yourself, whatever. The important part is that all of my coworkers who traditionally have dealt with such discrimination don't have to feel it from you.
The other response to you basically the rest covered my point.
> That people can make such blanket statements about an entire political party, esp the party of Abraham Lincoln.
lol. What does the Republican party of today have in common with the republican party of Abe Lincoln? Seriously, I'd love to hear it. The Republican party of today is so far from what it was even 40 years ago, let alone 150.
> Not by the their political affiliation, not by their race, not by their sexuality, gender, etc.
If you were a member of the neo-nazi party, I would not want you in my workplace either. No political affiliation deserves respect merely because of its existence. If you align yourself with bigots, even if you aren't necessarily one yourself, be prepared to be treated as one.
I say this as someone who is independent; I think both parties suck. But if you're going to be a Republican who thinks that gays shouldn't get married, get the fuck out of my workplace. I don't want you here, and I'd guess most of my coworkers wouldn't want you here either.
It depends. If you wear a MAGA hat to work at this point, I wouldn't mind if you were fired for it. Keep that bigoted shit to yourself. If you wear that hat at this point, you're, in my mind, actively discriminating against certain parts of our population and deserve 0 respect from peers. I would want you out of my workplace. If you voted for him and keep to yourself, whatever. The important part is that all of my coworkers who traditionally have dealt with such discrimination don't have to feel it from you.
The other response to you basically the rest covered my point.
> That people can make such blanket statements about an entire political party, esp the party of Abraham Lincoln.
lol. What does the Republican party of today have in common with the republican party of Abe Lincoln? Seriously, I'd love to hear it. The Republican party of today is so far from what it was even 40 years ago, let alone 150.
> Not by the their political affiliation, not by their race, not by their sexuality, gender, etc.
If you were a member of the neo-nazi party, I would not want you in my workplace either. No political affiliation deserves respect merely because of its existence. If you align yourself with bigots, even if you aren't necessarily one yourself, be prepared to be treated as one.
I say this as someone who is independent; I think both parties suck. But if you're going to be a Republican who thinks that gays shouldn't get married, get the fuck out of my workplace. I don't want you here, and I'd guess most of my coworkers wouldn't want you here either.
You've created a straw man.
The original point was that inclusion means accepting everyone and their beliefs. Regardless of how bigoted they are.
And that is ridiculous.
No one is saying don't hire republicans because they are anti-gay, anti-womens rights, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-muslim.
What we are saying is that if you have an bigoted opinion (such as homophobia), keep it to yourself, or you will be shunned (in tech).
You want limited government, guns in the classroom, no government medical care, trickle-down economics, fine, we can debate those policies all day long and never agree.
But sorry, no, you can't get to be a bigot and expect us to accept it.
The original point was that inclusion means accepting everyone and their beliefs. Regardless of how bigoted they are.
And that is ridiculous.
No one is saying don't hire republicans because they are anti-gay, anti-womens rights, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-muslim.
What we are saying is that if you have an bigoted opinion (such as homophobia), keep it to yourself, or you will be shunned (in tech).
You want limited government, guns in the classroom, no government medical care, trickle-down economics, fine, we can debate those policies all day long and never agree.
But sorry, no, you can't get to be a bigot and expect us to accept it.
It's still not at all clear to me if you believe it is possible for a Republican to not hate gays, or if it is possible for you to not hate Republicans.
> In fact around 40% support gay marriage:
So the majority republicans support bigotry. And we should accept that?
So the majority republicans support bigotry. And we should accept that?
Depending on which poll you believe, a significant portion of Muslims support a whole bunch of unequal policies. Should we accept that? Or is that different?
I think you just helped further the posters first statement.
lol yes, it's comments like this which are a perfect example of why tech is not an inclusive community.
Its only as inclusive as the market demands. If someone is poor enough at decision making that will hold non-sense beliefs like hating a group of people because of what they do with their genitals in privacy away from the office, then chances are they didn't have much to contribute to tech.
If someone holds well reasoned and logical beliefs for hating the gay-hater that person can at least suss out some amount of logic.
I am not saying that all homophic are stupid or that all haters of the homophobic are smart, but one of these uses evidence and logic and that correlates at loosely with intelligence.
If someone holds well reasoned and logical beliefs for hating the gay-hater that person can at least suss out some amount of logic.
I am not saying that all homophic are stupid or that all haters of the homophobic are smart, but one of these uses evidence and logic and that correlates at loosely with intelligence.
Brenden Eich felt compelled to step down as Mozilla CEO because he supported a ban on Gay marriage and parts of the tech community criticized him for it (including OkCupid which ran a special banner for Firefox users).
If that means Tech is not inclusive--then you're right.
If that means Tech is not inclusive--then you're right.
Tech has generally been one of the most inclusive places for people on the aspie/autistic side of the spectrum, but in recent years, it's become far more hostile. The reason for this is tact filters.
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html http://ozarque.livejournal.com/176349.html
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html http://ozarque.livejournal.com/176349.html
Tangential note about the second link: in my experience (having done my share of work on a cattle ranch when I was growing up), cows are very easy to move. Just look big. Put your arms out. Yell "heeeaugh!" at them. They'll spook and start moving away.
This might differ based on the herd, though. My uncle's cattle are beef cattle, so not much in terms of friendly human interaction. Dairy cattle might have less fear of humans.
This might differ based on the herd, though. My uncle's cattle are beef cattle, so not much in terms of friendly human interaction. Dairy cattle might have less fear of humans.
> Think about your coworkers-- you've got some weird ones. Dyed hair? Check. Burlesque dancing? Check. Gender non-conforming? Check. Goes to Burning Man? Check, check, self-check. Any of these things could get you fired from teaching kindergarten.
Not here I don't. Every tech company I've worked in mostly had the same types of people there as everywhere else. I've never seen a single person with dyed hair, nor anyone who goes to Burning Man, is gender non conforming or has unusual hobbies like burlesque dancing.
Same with the companies I've interviewed at, applied for or toured around. I guess they'd skew younger than they would in other industries (though I haven't seen much of a difference on that front), but no one here is your hipster college student stereotype.
Still, maybe it's different over in Silicon Valley compared to London.
Not here I don't. Every tech company I've worked in mostly had the same types of people there as everywhere else. I've never seen a single person with dyed hair, nor anyone who goes to Burning Man, is gender non conforming or has unusual hobbies like burlesque dancing.
Same with the companies I've interviewed at, applied for or toured around. I guess they'd skew younger than they would in other industries (though I haven't seen much of a difference on that front), but no one here is your hipster college student stereotype.
Still, maybe it's different over in Silicon Valley compared to London.
I agree with what you said about meritocracy, mostly.
A few months ago, I made a sexist statement here on HN about women and that they don't think logically [0]. Well, I couldn't be more ashamed and sorry for that. I've known some incredible women in tech ever since, and came to realize that I was wrong. Tech is actually a place where women can shine.
[0] That statement got my account banned and I couldn't get it back.
Edit: corrected my sentences to better convey my meaning.
A few months ago, I made a sexist statement here on HN about women and that they don't think logically [0]. Well, I couldn't be more ashamed and sorry for that. I've known some incredible women in tech ever since, and came to realize that I was wrong. Tech is actually a place where women can shine.
[0] That statement got my account banned and I couldn't get it back.
Edit: corrected my sentences to better convey my meaning.
>A few months ago, I made a sexist statement here on HN about women and the fact that they don't think logically.
For the future, if you're actually contrite, you should probably stop referring to that belief as a "fact".
For the future, if you're actually contrite, you should probably stop referring to that belief as a "fact".
Yeah, actually I didn't know how to say that in English. I'll edit it.
None of my coworkers are like.
Also, if you want to keep tech weird doesn't that mean you need to reject the non-weird, the "conformists". How is that accepting at all?
Also, if you want to keep tech weird doesn't that mean you need to reject the non-weird, the "conformists". How is that accepting at all?
It is a good implementation. I think the crux is that it could be better, and for some (many?) it's not good enough.
A question is if we want a meritocracy at all, and whether such a model would be suitable for everyone, and further how merit is even judged; the problem isn't as you've mentioned "weirdness", it's that people can be treated worse for not even being "weird" at all.
There have been various criticisms levelled at the idea of "colur blindness", and I think that when people say they are in favour of a meritocracy, they are in favour of continuing this idea that people start on a level field in which everyone's merit can be fairly assessed. Merit is assessed by each member of the team, and thus personal bias comes into play. The mere operation on the assesment of merit is insufficient to remove these biases, if they do exist.
I don't like the idea of "sit down and do your work", beacuse to me it feels dehumanising. Yes, I know this is how "the system" works in the "real world" but I think this attitude is stopping us from realising that when working in a team we are all human and human issues need to be addressed. So in this sense I can appeal to you too in saying that efficiency may indeed be compromised with the "sit down and work" attitude when some people are clearly facing problems.
Our mode of production does not optimise for the human side of interaction, nor the psychological aspect of the effects of production (joint or not) (i.e alienation) and for this reason I would say that we're already too meritocratic. People turn out to be pretty poor judges of merit, at least from the arguments I have seen. Meritocracy can lead to someone regarded as more experienced or doing more "important" work shutting down someone else who has legitimate criticisms.
There have been various criticisms levelled at the idea of "colur blindness", and I think that when people say they are in favour of a meritocracy, they are in favour of continuing this idea that people start on a level field in which everyone's merit can be fairly assessed. Merit is assessed by each member of the team, and thus personal bias comes into play. The mere operation on the assesment of merit is insufficient to remove these biases, if they do exist.
I don't like the idea of "sit down and do your work", beacuse to me it feels dehumanising. Yes, I know this is how "the system" works in the "real world" but I think this attitude is stopping us from realising that when working in a team we are all human and human issues need to be addressed. So in this sense I can appeal to you too in saying that efficiency may indeed be compromised with the "sit down and work" attitude when some people are clearly facing problems.
Our mode of production does not optimise for the human side of interaction, nor the psychological aspect of the effects of production (joint or not) (i.e alienation) and for this reason I would say that we're already too meritocratic. People turn out to be pretty poor judges of merit, at least from the arguments I have seen. Meritocracy can lead to someone regarded as more experienced or doing more "important" work shutting down someone else who has legitimate criticisms.
Personally, I think this article title is clickbait. Nowhere does the author show that it's the best industry for women, only that in her experience, it was a better industry than medicine and a biology lab. And then some fluff about meritocracy. No exhaustive comparison across all the industry areas, no dive into data beyond one singular experience.
I'm tired of titles that don't explain what the article is about. Something like "Why the tech industry is a good industry for women" would be a more accurate reflection of the content.
We've been conditioned by clickbait farms to sensationalize our personal blog posts.
I'm tired of titles that don't explain what the article is about. Something like "Why the tech industry is a good industry for women" would be a more accurate reflection of the content.
We've been conditioned by clickbait farms to sensationalize our personal blog posts.
Agreed that this was clickbait. I was hoping to read insightful, personal anecdotes. She didn't offer any support for her claims other than: "I'm a pole dancer! And people still take me seriously in tech!" Not to mention the blatant self promotion throughout the piece.
And as a result, people clicked on it. And then they voted on it. And then it got to the top of Hacker News. And then it'll probably go on to get 10k+ reads.
Now, remind me why we shouldn't use smart headlines?
Now, remind me why we shouldn't use smart headlines?
It's so weird, this community's obsession with article titles. What is the purpose of a link title, if not to interest someone and convince them to click it?
I guess I'm contrasting it to Susan Fowler's piece "A very, very strange year at Uber" which if she wanted to could have been titled "Why Uber is the worst place to work at in the entire tech industry".
I really respect her for letting the facts and content of her article speak for itself. I wish more would do the same.
I really respect her for letting the facts and content of her article speak for itself. I wish more would do the same.
I don't really disagree with you in this case.
However, to be fair, headline writers have been writing "clickbait" headlines for far longer than there have been clicks. Headlines in magazines and newspapers have never been scientific journal titles.
However, to be fair, headline writers have been writing "clickbait" headlines for far longer than there have been clicks. Headlines in magazines and newspapers have never been scientific journal titles.
It's understandable why they do that, but it can put journalists/writers of articles with clickbaity headlines in a tough spot, as they are often forced to defend headlines they never wrote in the first place!
Tell me about it :-) I do the headlines for pieces I write and obviously no one's going to change them on my own blog. But I do write for other venues as well--and I admit I'm not the world's snappiest headline writer--and they do sometimes get changed to things that don't quite match the content of the article.
To be fair, articles that cover this topic are almost always clickbait.
What do you consider the best industry for women?
None?
None?
Well shucks I'm not sure, I clicked on this article hoping to get some insight on that exact question.
But my hypothesis would be social services and hospitality because both those industries have a high percentage of women advancing from entry level to management roles and I think a track record of career progression is probably a decent proxy for it being a good industry for a demographic.
But I'm definitely not going to write a blog post saying "Social services it the best industry for women" until I did a lot more research into it.
But my hypothesis would be social services and hospitality because both those industries have a high percentage of women advancing from entry level to management roles and I think a track record of career progression is probably a decent proxy for it being a good industry for a demographic.
But I'm definitely not going to write a blog post saying "Social services it the best industry for women" until I did a lot more research into it.
Pieces like this sometimes make me wonder if sexism is not actually more rampant in tech, men in tech are just more open to self-criticism and accepting that something is wrong with themselves and their industry.
All the things you hear about in tech, you hear about elsewhere. But the men in them don't seem to compete with each other over who can be the most self deprecating and sympathetic with those calling them out.
I wonder perhaps if this has something to do with the tendency of men in tech to be smart, introverted, liberal-leaning, wallflowers, humble (or fake humble), not socially well-tuned, somewhat feeble and self-sacrificial. (As a tendency, not a rule.)
Picture the employees in a Wolf of Walstreet type company, and employees at Uber. Is sexism equally frequent at both places? Probably. But which group of men do you see self-reporting and willingly fighting to adopt a self image of sexist? Probably not the Wolf of Wallstreet-ers.
All the things you hear about in tech, you hear about elsewhere. But the men in them don't seem to compete with each other over who can be the most self deprecating and sympathetic with those calling them out.
I wonder perhaps if this has something to do with the tendency of men in tech to be smart, introverted, liberal-leaning, wallflowers, humble (or fake humble), not socially well-tuned, somewhat feeble and self-sacrificial. (As a tendency, not a rule.)
Picture the employees in a Wolf of Walstreet type company, and employees at Uber. Is sexism equally frequent at both places? Probably. But which group of men do you see self-reporting and willingly fighting to adopt a self image of sexist? Probably not the Wolf of Wallstreet-ers.
I think what you're describing is scrupulosity.
Scott Aaronson had a really nice comment about this on his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664
Scott Aaronson had a really nice comment about this on his blog: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2091#comment-326664
hasenj(1)
Yeah, I'm definitely going to see this thread on n-gate.
"One hackernews points out that the problem in tech isn't endemic sexism, but that male engineers are just so much better than all other men."
"One hackernews points out that the problem in tech isn't endemic sexism, but that male engineers are just so much better than all other men."
If you read my comment as saying men in tech are superior, you got the wrong message.
Edit: By that, I mean the traits I pointed out above are debatable in terms of desirability. Things like self-sacrificial and feebleness definitely seem like flaws to me at least. I am somewhat surprised that you interpreted these descriptors as superior.
Edit: By that, I mean the traits I pointed out above are debatable in terms of desirability. Things like self-sacrificial and feebleness definitely seem like flaws to me at least. I am somewhat surprised that you interpreted these descriptors as superior.
I was characterizing it in the typical way n-gate posts are written and as a means of satirizing the entire comment thread.
But I'll just add that you selected a couple traits for your examples out of a list of largely positive traits (either universally regarded as positive or lionized in tech almost as badges of relateable honor: introverted, wallflower, etc.).
The overall message as I read it was "men in tech are more introspective and empathetic."
But I'll just add that you selected a couple traits for your examples out of a list of largely positive traits (either universally regarded as positive or lionized in tech almost as badges of relateable honor: introverted, wallflower, etc.).
The overall message as I read it was "men in tech are more introspective and empathetic."
Some are positive, some are negative. Introvert, liberal, wallflower, and humble (or fake humble) definitely don't all seem like they're necessarily positives to me, either. Even some of the ones that are positive can lead to negative consequences for the men who have them, as a group. Introspection and empathy are generally considered good things, but also can lead to the result described in my comment. I'm not really trying to make a judgment about who are better or worse men - I think you have to be digging for that a little bit, if that's what you're reading. It's more just an observation that these traits lead to that result.
I don't know what n-gate is.
I don't know what n-gate is.
Kinda off-topic but I have to agree with the "it doesn’t matter where you come from" and myself am very grateful to the tech industry for that. If it wasn't the case I'd probably still be working at a fast-food chain currently, as in my country without years of formal education you're pretty much considered worthless - if it wasn't for tech I'd be doomed.
Similarly here. School wasn't the best fit for me and tech was great because (like politics, which I also spent ~5 years in) you didn't need a fancy degree to get a job.
> you didn't need a fancy degree to get a job.
What's wrong with a fancy degree? I don't understand why fancy degree is used as a pejorative around here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most people these days that come from bootcamps make more money than people with "fancy degree"s.
What's wrong with a fancy degree? I don't understand why fancy degree is used as a pejorative around here. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that most people these days that come from bootcamps make more money than people with "fancy degree"s.
The pejorative is for companies that are requiring fancy degrees for simple jobs and not for the degrees themselves.
It is not that there is anything wrong with a fancy degree per se.
The problem is the opposite. People with fancy degrees often look down on others who DON'T have fancy degrees.
Thus, other people often engage in defense, counter ribbing at the other side. But we need to be aware that the current culture context of this it is very common for Fancy Degree people to be praised and everyone else to be looked down upon.
The problem is the opposite. People with fancy degrees often look down on others who DON'T have fancy degrees.
Thus, other people often engage in defense, counter ribbing at the other side. But we need to be aware that the current culture context of this it is very common for Fancy Degree people to be praised and everyone else to be looked down upon.
> The problem is the opposite. People with fancy degrees often look down on others who DON'T have fancy degrees.
Arrogance is not a desirable trait in any person, but doesn't a fancy degree take work? I find it interesting that on HN we seem to hold up startup employees as shining examples but fancy degree holders as corrupt power brokers, when both take quite a bit of effort.
> But we need to be aware that the current culture context of this it is very common for Fancy Degree people to be praised and everyone else to be looked down upon.
Right, but in tech, where most are paid astronomically high salaries, if the Fancy Degree is looked down upon, then aren't the non-Fancy-Degree people in a fairly privileged position? Maybe this attitude is only prevalent in the online HN forum, and Fancy Degrees are actually valued in industry.
Arrogance is not a desirable trait in any person, but doesn't a fancy degree take work? I find it interesting that on HN we seem to hold up startup employees as shining examples but fancy degree holders as corrupt power brokers, when both take quite a bit of effort.
> But we need to be aware that the current culture context of this it is very common for Fancy Degree people to be praised and everyone else to be looked down upon.
Right, but in tech, where most are paid astronomically high salaries, if the Fancy Degree is looked down upon, then aren't the non-Fancy-Degree people in a fairly privileged position? Maybe this attitude is only prevalent in the online HN forum, and Fancy Degrees are actually valued in industry.
A fancy degree is certainly an accomplishment and potentially a good path to follow, but it is one path among many.
There are lots and lots of other paths that one could follow, and they all have both advantages and disadvantages. One path is not automatically better than any of the others 100% of the time.
The problem is that the common, pro-fancy degree perspective comes from a very hierarchical perspective that just isn't true at all.
It assumes that Harvard is better Stanford which is better than a tier 2 or tier 1.5 school.
There is even a hierarchy AMONG similar fancy degrees. IE, Computer Science is better than Information Systems.
Many an Information Systems major will be able to talk about their experience of being shit on for their choices because apparently everyone thinks that the only reason to do Information Systems is because you didn't get accepted to computer science.
Because of the hierarchical cultural context in which we are in, I am not going to criticize Info systems majors for making fun of CS majors, nor will I criticize startupy, non-fancy degree holders on HN for making fun of the fancy degree holders.
There are lots and lots of other paths that one could follow, and they all have both advantages and disadvantages. One path is not automatically better than any of the others 100% of the time.
The problem is that the common, pro-fancy degree perspective comes from a very hierarchical perspective that just isn't true at all.
It assumes that Harvard is better Stanford which is better than a tier 2 or tier 1.5 school.
There is even a hierarchy AMONG similar fancy degrees. IE, Computer Science is better than Information Systems.
Many an Information Systems major will be able to talk about their experience of being shit on for their choices because apparently everyone thinks that the only reason to do Information Systems is because you didn't get accepted to computer science.
Because of the hierarchical cultural context in which we are in, I am not going to criticize Info systems majors for making fun of CS majors, nor will I criticize startupy, non-fancy degree holders on HN for making fun of the fancy degree holders.
>Because of the hierarchical cultural context in which we are in, I am not going to criticize Info systems majors for making fun of CS majors, nor will I criticize startupy, non-fancy degree holders on HN for making fun of the fancy degree holders.
Sure but then we're just replacing one form of hierarchy with another, where we replace company tiers with school tiers, and job titles with degrees.
> The problem is that the common, pro-fancy degree perspective comes from a very hierarchical perspective that just isn't true at all.
You don't think there's any truth in that an Ivy League school is more selective than a community college? I'm not saying that it makes sense to say that Harvard > Stanford, in all ways, or even that these schools have a fair selection system, but it seems to me that this has become a black-and-white affair (pro-degree vs. anti-degree, pro-hierarchy vs. anti-hierarchy) rather than a nuanced issue.
Sure but then we're just replacing one form of hierarchy with another, where we replace company tiers with school tiers, and job titles with degrees.
> The problem is that the common, pro-fancy degree perspective comes from a very hierarchical perspective that just isn't true at all.
You don't think there's any truth in that an Ivy League school is more selective than a community college? I'm not saying that it makes sense to say that Harvard > Stanford, in all ways, or even that these schools have a fair selection system, but it seems to me that this has become a black-and-white affair (pro-degree vs. anti-degree, pro-hierarchy vs. anti-hierarchy) rather than a nuanced issue.
It depends.
Lets say you have two people.
1 who went to an ivy league and gets a great job at an investment bank and another who went to a community college, but spent most of their free time self studying and building a startup that ends up being valued at, say, 10 million dollars.
Which of these two people is smarter, more successful, and/or a harder worker?
My answer is "I don't know". Both people have their strengths and weaknesses.
The school that you went to, no matter if it is an ivy league or a community college, is just a single aspect about you.
There are many paths to success and aspects about you as a person, and I would not say that what college degree someone got is even close to the most important or predictive factor about a person's life or how successful they are going to be.
Lets say you have two people.
1 who went to an ivy league and gets a great job at an investment bank and another who went to a community college, but spent most of their free time self studying and building a startup that ends up being valued at, say, 10 million dollars.
Which of these two people is smarter, more successful, and/or a harder worker?
My answer is "I don't know". Both people have their strengths and weaknesses.
The school that you went to, no matter if it is an ivy league or a community college, is just a single aspect about you.
There are many paths to success and aspects about you as a person, and I would not say that what college degree someone got is even close to the most important or predictive factor about a person's life or how successful they are going to be.
A fancy degree not being a prerequisite for a job doesn't mean it's a negative indicator - there are plenty of people with fancy degrees(degrees from prestigious colleges) in the tech industry.
Nothing is wrong with a fancy degree, and I don't think OP is invalidating or shining a negative light on a fancy degree. OP is just saying that you could also get into tech/politics without the necessity of requiring one
yep. i wasn't looking down on a 'fancy degree' at all. in fact, i'd love to have one!
Nothing wrong per se, but personally I see it as a waste of time - you could've built real products and actually improved the world during the time wasted on that fancy degree.
> actually improved the world during the time
You're gonna have to really qualify that statement. The vast majority of tech startups do not improve the world in any way.
You're gonna have to really qualify that statement. The vast majority of tech startups do not improve the world in any way.
Okay, so does the vast majority of degrees improve the world? Even if 1 out of 1000 startups improved the world it's still an improvement over students writing (often crappy) code just to prove their university they're worth enough to get that degree.
What about all of the grad students working and doing research? I'd argue that their labor improves society more than the average startup.
This constant debate about industries that are good or bad for women is getting a little old and tired. As with all things in life, I find the broader culture tends to affect workplace culture tremendously. Women have tended to shy away from STEM not because it's an antiwomen environment but rather because their broader culture discourages them. My electrical engineering class had about 20% females, and not a single one of them was Caucasian. I went to a top engineering school in Canada. All the females were of immigrant backgrounds where their families and their ethnic culture promoted higher education in STEM fields. On the other hand, several other of the engineering disciplines (the one's a bit closer to traditional science or business such as civil, chem and industrial) had much more balanced ratio's. The problem in North America is that we tend to promote "TECH" culture as male dominated and geeky. Girls shy away from it because they face constant social pressure from a young age to fit in (as males do but that's another story). On the other hand, I come from an ethnic background and in my country electrical engineering classes have the same number if not more women then men. This gender diversity thing is a broad cultural and economic problem (also another story). I hate when popular media simplifies it.
A few thoughts about the post...
She's new to tech. 2 years by her own account. That's not a lot of time to experience all the industry has to offer (good or bad). No comment on whether her feelings will change over time; they very well may not.
Pole dancing photos and other stuff. Maybe in SV. But, in DC, stuff like that is very likely career limiting. I can't say for sure, that's a gut feeling based on the jobs and companies in the area.
She's new to tech. 2 years by her own account. That's not a lot of time to experience all the industry has to offer (good or bad). No comment on whether her feelings will change over time; they very well may not.
Pole dancing photos and other stuff. Maybe in SV. But, in DC, stuff like that is very likely career limiting. I can't say for sure, that's a gut feeling based on the jobs and companies in the area.
Our founder's response to this article. https://medium.com/@dinah_davis/thanks-for-sharing-your-expe...
In the original article, the author's claim was "the most welcoming industry I’ve seen" while your founder describes it as "Claiming the whole industry is welcoming is in invalidating their experience" and proceeds to argue against that.
Unfortunately, this is the very definition of a straw man.
Unfortunately, this is the very definition of a straw man.
to be fair, they probably didn't read the original post
That was my initial guess too but the response quoted that original line exactly.
"In how many other industries can a woman post pole dancing pictures of herself and still have a job?"
So, I'm not at all convinced that this is because of anything inherently virtuous about people in this industry. Rather, I think it's that we're at a point in business cycles and history where tech industry labor is sufficiently in demand that potential employers aren't using extraneous criteria to discard candidates.
While I think it is great that people are being treated well because of this, I also think it's important that people don't become complacent about issues like employment discrimination just because they happen to be doing well right now.
So, I'm not at all convinced that this is because of anything inherently virtuous about people in this industry. Rather, I think it's that we're at a point in business cycles and history where tech industry labor is sufficiently in demand that potential employers aren't using extraneous criteria to discard candidates.
While I think it is great that people are being treated well because of this, I also think it's important that people don't become complacent about issues like employment discrimination just because they happen to be doing well right now.
This is a rather sweeping statement that is in denial of experiences others have had and reflects a lack of empathy than any insight into the tech industry.
Why are you so concerned about 'skewed perceptions' than the suffering of others? Surely the latter corrected will automatically address the former without any intervention.
This kind of 'since its good for me its good for everyone' thinking is self absorbed and often premature. One negative experience could send the author careening to the other end.
Why are you so concerned about 'skewed perceptions' than the suffering of others? Surely the latter corrected will automatically address the former without any intervention.
This kind of 'since its good for me its good for everyone' thinking is self absorbed and often premature. One negative experience could send the author careening to the other end.
Well this should certainly make for some interesting dialogue.
I suspect there are some important truths in this post, and my intuition is perhaps a bit of naivete as well, it's hard to say for sure. I think humankind has a decade or two of suffering to go through before we can start to have conversations at a level above adolescence on topics such as this, but by then how many other things will have changed?
I suspect there are some important truths in this post, and my intuition is perhaps a bit of naivete as well, it's hard to say for sure. I think humankind has a decade or two of suffering to go through before we can start to have conversations at a level above adolescence on topics such as this, but by then how many other things will have changed?
[deleted]
Please, before this degrades into the inevitable shouting match, let's please consider that there are two things that can both simultaneously be true:
1.Tech is less bad than many, many other industries. I can personally speak to overt, even illegal sexism in the field of medicine at a level that would cause riots in tech. I’ve heard similar stories in academia, to say nothing of fields like manufacturing. We live in a sexist society, and the professional world reflects that.
2. Being “less bad” than other industries does not mean we don’t have an obligation to do better. We as an industry need to be doing more to make sure that the vast majority of stories are like this one. We’re not there yet.
1.Tech is less bad than many, many other industries. I can personally speak to overt, even illegal sexism in the field of medicine at a level that would cause riots in tech. I’ve heard similar stories in academia, to say nothing of fields like manufacturing. We live in a sexist society, and the professional world reflects that.
2. Being “less bad” than other industries does not mean we don’t have an obligation to do better. We as an industry need to be doing more to make sure that the vast majority of stories are like this one. We’re not there yet.
In Hollywood, men at certain levels throw tantrums and break things when something isn't to their liking. It's changing a little and the film industry is ready for a comeuppance.
But in IT and many other industries this kind of behavior would get you flat-out escorted out of the building. What's considered OK on a film set is not tolerated in most offices.
But in IT and many other industries this kind of behavior would get you flat-out escorted out of the building. What's considered OK on a film set is not tolerated in most offices.
> In Hollywood, men at certain levels throw tantrums and break things when something isn't to their liking.
How is that a gender specific thing?
How is that a gender specific thing?
Uh, it's men doing it. Male directors. Male cinematographers. Male Unit Production Managers.
I think you'll find that narcissistic violent temper tantrums are an equal opportunity game in Hollywood. It comes with the territory, due to the "tormented artist" trope having some basis in reality.
I think your second point is the thing that is it always so easy to gloss over. "better" or "less bad" are very relative. In the end, the Golden Rule is the target but the reality is that there are a lot of people that suck and have no concept of self reflection.
I think the article highlights one of the good points about tech. The meritocracy.
It's not perfect but it's there.
It's not perfect but it's there.
The problem with "meritocracy" culture is that it often values only 1 form of meritocracy and that is direct, technical, individual contributions.
IE, it values the brilliant asshole.
Sure, the brilliant asshole is very smart, and makes good individual contributions. But thats not really what matters.
What matters is the TOTAL contributions of the entire team. And the brilliant asshole, often brings a lot of INDIRECT negative value to that entire team, as he creates a toxic culture that negatively impacts the other people that he is supposed to be working with.
Whether or not a "meritocracy" is good or not depends entirely upon the definition of meritocracy that you are using.
IE, it values the brilliant asshole.
Sure, the brilliant asshole is very smart, and makes good individual contributions. But thats not really what matters.
What matters is the TOTAL contributions of the entire team. And the brilliant asshole, often brings a lot of INDIRECT negative value to that entire team, as he creates a toxic culture that negatively impacts the other people that he is supposed to be working with.
Whether or not a "meritocracy" is good or not depends entirely upon the definition of meritocracy that you are using.
> The problem with "meritocracy" culture is that it often values only 1 form of meritocracy and that is direct, technical, individual contributions.
I haven't witnessed this, but maybe I've just gotten lucky with the companies I've worked at. The companies I've worked at seemed to value both your individual contributions as well as your ability to make others more productive.. being a toxic asshole to your coworkers would absolutely not fly, even if you were hyperproductive. There were certainly some people who were highly valued that were highly productive that didn't seem to particularly _care_ about making other people's lives easier, but they also weren't toxic - they mostly kept to themselves.
I haven't witnessed this, but maybe I've just gotten lucky with the companies I've worked at. The companies I've worked at seemed to value both your individual contributions as well as your ability to make others more productive.. being a toxic asshole to your coworkers would absolutely not fly, even if you were hyperproductive. There were certainly some people who were highly valued that were highly productive that didn't seem to particularly _care_ about making other people's lives easier, but they also weren't toxic - they mostly kept to themselves.
Positive stories are just as important as the stories of sexism and harassment. One tells us the problem exists, the other reassures us that something can be done about it.
A reasonable concern is that "doing better" to some metric or agenda pushed by outsiders or johnny-come-latelies will result in the degradation of the ability to foster diversity and merit.
For example, how would the relatively sterile and sexless HR policies of Big Co. handle the pole dancing the author refers to? How long before that had to go too?
For example, how would the relatively sterile and sexless HR policies of Big Co. handle the pole dancing the author refers to? How long before that had to go too?
Article should be titled :
"Tech is the best industry for women, compared to the others"
It's not like it's the 60-ies. Posting photos about you having fun should always be allowed wherever you work ( well, maybe public jobs is an exception - politics, teachers, etc. ).
I'm sick of this topic, anyway.
"Tech is the best industry for women, compared to the others"
It's not like it's the 60-ies. Posting photos about you having fun should always be allowed wherever you work ( well, maybe public jobs is an exception - politics, teachers, etc. ).
I'm sick of this topic, anyway.
Aren't many of the same points true for other disadvantaged groups, say, convicted felons?
[deleted]
Ah yes, the "cool tech girl" position. https://code.likeagirl.io/the-myth-of-the-cool-tech-girl-786...
I'm glad she has a positive experience. It's far from common. I wish her good luck on the road of discovering empathy.
I'm glad she has a positive experience. It's far from common. I wish her good luck on the road of discovering empathy.
It's far from common.
Are things really that different between here and there?
All the stuff described in your linked piece: I've never seen any of it in tech.
In garages? Sure they are full of what would otherwise be nsfw. But IT? Can't remember ever seing anything. 5 years ago I heard a couple of colleagues discussing the title of an NSFW video that someone had started playing or their computer as a prank after they left it unlocked. And about the same time we had what I consider ann @$$ as manager in the department next to mine.
He would attack girls yes but he would also attack anyone else so I think it was more about being a general @$$.
And I've worked at a few places.
Are things really that different between here and there?
All the stuff described in your linked piece: I've never seen any of it in tech.
In garages? Sure they are full of what would otherwise be nsfw. But IT? Can't remember ever seing anything. 5 years ago I heard a couple of colleagues discussing the title of an NSFW video that someone had started playing or their computer as a prank after they left it unlocked. And about the same time we had what I consider ann @$$ as manager in the department next to mine.
He would attack girls yes but he would also attack anyone else so I think it was more about being a general @$$.
And I've worked at a few places.
I'm sure you've noticed the news that the industry has a bit of a harassment problem, right?
As for the "never experienced" - you're lucky. Or just didn't see. I've worked at openly sexist companies, I've worked with teams that had a regular lunch at a strip club, and I've seen a lot of the "oh, girls can't code" bullshit. I've seen black and latinx people completely excluded from team activities.
A lot of the people doing that weren't aware of what they were doing, but that doesn't excuse it. And if you look at things like the Petri Multiplier[1], it will help you understand why minorities are more affected by this than majorities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrie_multiplier
As for the "never experienced" - you're lucky. Or just didn't see. I've worked at openly sexist companies, I've worked with teams that had a regular lunch at a strip club, and I've seen a lot of the "oh, girls can't code" bullshit. I've seen black and latinx people completely excluded from team activities.
A lot of the people doing that weren't aware of what they were doing, but that doesn't excuse it. And if you look at things like the Petri Multiplier[1], it will help you understand why minorities are more affected by this than majorities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrie_multiplier
Ok. Just saying that you have a crazy culture.
None of that would fly around here.
So you are right: the things you mention are deeply unprofessional.
None of that would fly around here.
So you are right: the things you mention are deeply unprofessional.
What exactly is wrong with ping-pong tournaments?
Yeah, I don't get this "I'll criticize everything that I think mainly men enjoy!" mentality. I couple interviewees with this idea in their mind criticized a company I was working at a couple years ago, and I was left scratching my head.
As a guy, I didn't use the foosball table or the ping pong table all that much. They said it was a "brogrammer" thing, but I don't understand how other people wanting to compete on the table top sports among themselves is a somehow bad sign. If anything, it's good that the members of team that want to can bond over fair competition in something unrelated to job performance.
As a guy, I didn't use the foosball table or the ping pong table all that much. They said it was a "brogrammer" thing, but I don't understand how other people wanting to compete on the table top sports among themselves is a somehow bad sign. If anything, it's good that the members of team that want to can bond over fair competition in something unrelated to job performance.
The point is that it creates a specific type of environment - which is exclusive. It attracts a specific kind of person (competitive, usually male). There's nothing wrong with offering it, per se. But you should make sure it's not the only thing you offer. And you need to make sure it's not the place where all the decisions get made.
That is where the problem comes from. You'll be excluded from the "inner circle" unless you participate in a specific kind of activity.
Clearly, this is not limited to foosball tables. Or even typically male activities. The core problem is having only bonding experiences of a specific kind.
The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.
But if you must do it, you should be sure to offer diversity.
That is where the problem comes from. You'll be excluded from the "inner circle" unless you participate in a specific kind of activity.
Clearly, this is not limited to foosball tables. Or even typically male activities. The core problem is having only bonding experiences of a specific kind.
The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.
But if you must do it, you should be sure to offer diversity.
> That is where the problem comes from. You'll be excluded from the "inner circle" unless you participate in a specific kind of activity.
This was not the case. Some women did participate, but the ones who did not participate did not miss it. They went home or somewhere else because they have the wisdom of work-life balance.
> The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.
The men I've seen (in my case in Canada, not the U.S. [but probably similar]) tend to have less work-life balance. Since they spend most of their time at work, they more likely want to have closer relationships with their colleagues. Basically everyone I spend any amount of free time with was/is either a colleague, a client, or somebody I split rent with. Here in Toronto, it seems pretty rare to really meet anyone outside of family or work. Hobby clubs/classes are okay, but most people don't really go to many of them. If you live downtown, you probably don't know the names of your neighbours. You might never have even said a word to them.
Cities like mine, and I suspect areas in Si Valley, tend to encourage loneliness. Businesses are trying to build a social group to satisfy that need, and hopefully through that improve performance, reduce the cost of HR, reduce employee turnover, and reduce total compensation. This is what my office managers and HR folks have told me. In the U.S. I think it's exacerbated a bit by the relative low density of most cities, which makes it so that you have to drive to see people.
They offer company soda for the same sorts of reasons: Sugar intake increases blood glucose, which improves brain function (especially when stimulated with the company coffee), and it tends to keep employees sitting in their desks, where they are more likely to be doing work.
This was not the case. Some women did participate, but the ones who did not participate did not miss it. They went home or somewhere else because they have the wisdom of work-life balance.
> The biggest thing is, it's unnecessary. As a European, the US attitude of having entertainment at work continues to puzzle me. I go to work, I put in 8 hours of work, I go home and have fun. Why we need foosball tables (or reading groups, or wine tasting clubs, or whatever) is beyond me.
The men I've seen (in my case in Canada, not the U.S. [but probably similar]) tend to have less work-life balance. Since they spend most of their time at work, they more likely want to have closer relationships with their colleagues. Basically everyone I spend any amount of free time with was/is either a colleague, a client, or somebody I split rent with. Here in Toronto, it seems pretty rare to really meet anyone outside of family or work. Hobby clubs/classes are okay, but most people don't really go to many of them. If you live downtown, you probably don't know the names of your neighbours. You might never have even said a word to them.
Cities like mine, and I suspect areas in Si Valley, tend to encourage loneliness. Businesses are trying to build a social group to satisfy that need, and hopefully through that improve performance, reduce the cost of HR, reduce employee turnover, and reduce total compensation. This is what my office managers and HR folks have told me. In the U.S. I think it's exacerbated a bit by the relative low density of most cities, which makes it so that you have to drive to see people.
They offer company soda for the same sorts of reasons: Sugar intake increases blood glucose, which improves brain function (especially when stimulated with the company coffee), and it tends to keep employees sitting in their desks, where they are more likely to be doing work.
When it comes to some of these jobs, there seems to be a trope that the job market should be about "equal representation" which is complete nonsense but it is great for women because big companies want to present themselves as "respecting equality" and hence women are more likely to be hired in those positions than equally qualified men. So, yes, it is definitely very lucrative for women to pursue a career in tech industry. Even with that, there are less women willing to do it... which I think has more to do with the nature of work one is willing to do as their career more than anything else.
I have never read an article in one of these popular news sites on what should be done to increase the number of men to teach elementary schools or nursing or increase the number of women in truck driving or mining so I will not buy the "equal representation" argument.
But I will add that tech jobs are better for women because it is more likely to tolerate flexible working hours and remote work and is better for women who want to bear children and are willing to spend more time with them. I think if people actually believed that there should be more women workers in a particular position or industry, they would be highlighting more practical aspects of the nature of the job and how it might be better for them... or highlighting some positive and uplifting facts like the first programmer was a woman (Lady Ada) and one of the first programmers of general purpose digital computers (ENIAC) were also women... but that is very difficult to find. All we see is outrage politics (which I think is responsible for scaring away even the few women who want to do the job) and it baffles me that they continue to find audience for that.
I have never read an article in one of these popular news sites on what should be done to increase the number of men to teach elementary schools or nursing or increase the number of women in truck driving or mining so I will not buy the "equal representation" argument.
But I will add that tech jobs are better for women because it is more likely to tolerate flexible working hours and remote work and is better for women who want to bear children and are willing to spend more time with them. I think if people actually believed that there should be more women workers in a particular position or industry, they would be highlighting more practical aspects of the nature of the job and how it might be better for them... or highlighting some positive and uplifting facts like the first programmer was a woman (Lady Ada) and one of the first programmers of general purpose digital computers (ENIAC) were also women... but that is very difficult to find. All we see is outrage politics (which I think is responsible for scaring away even the few women who want to do the job) and it baffles me that they continue to find audience for that.
The far left does not understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
I come from a middle eastern background and my first language is Arabic. Through out my career, I've never encountered any working programmer who is from my background or speaks my language. But so what? I fail to see why this would be a problem for anyone.
I come from a middle eastern background and my first language is Arabic. Through out my career, I've never encountered any working programmer who is from my background or speaks my language. But so what? I fail to see why this would be a problem for anyone.
nobody cares about more men in elementary schools and nursing because its about equal representation in power and influence that comes with wealth.
[deleted]
It's all about money. I belong to a group that has less money than your group, so your group has to give me money. If you don't give me money I will scream right now to make everyone here think you are sexually assaulting me.
50 votes, posted 12 minutes ago. No comments. Find it hard to believe that many people discovered and read it that quick...
[deleted]
While the other more critical post was [flagged] after maybe 15 minutes...
What other post?
I assume they're referring to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868390
Was this posted somewhere else? I've seen instances where posts get onto the front page within 60 seconds because lots of people were submitting the same link.
And once something's on the front page, it's easy to get 50 upvotes in 10 minutes.
And once something's on the front page, it's easy to get 50 upvotes in 10 minutes.
It's not very long, it's pretty quick to read/skim over. People likely upvoted because they agreed with the sentiment, if not every single word.
Medium says it's 5 min read, so it's possible.
Not sure if this is the case, but a lot of people do drive by upvoting/downvoting based on the title alone.
Maybe people enjoy a bit of positivity about partially successful efforts towards diversity. It sometimes feels like all efforts towards it get little recognition and only more risks of being falsely accused. So when someone says something along the lines of "Some people are great, even males", it gets upvotes.
Maybe they had already read it then came here and saw it posted?
She goes to MIT by the way. (not saying she doesn't deserve it)
I bet if she went to some no-name university and people saw her pole dancing then her employment would be more limited
I bet if she went to some no-name university and people saw her pole dancing then her employment would be more limited
Do you have any facts to back this up? I would say education is pretty irrelevant if you've actually got something to show off (open source projects, etc).
Education is not irrelevant in tech if you went to MIT or Stanford.
It's not the education per se, it's the higher probability distribution of how good you are.
And, perhaps more significantly, the social cachet of the institution among the population doing hiring and the probability of your network intersecting with those of the people doing hiring.
it's pretty well known if you go to a top university, then you're more likely to get interviews if you don't have much professional experience outside internships.
I'm not saying you can't work at Google from a no-name university, but but there is a steeper hill.
Once you have like 7+ years of professional experience, then education matters less.
I'm not saying you can't work at Google from a no-name university, but but there is a steeper hill.
Once you have like 7+ years of professional experience, then education matters less.
You're totally right that a Name Brand™ degree will open doors at the staple companies like Apple/Google/Facebook. That said, the number of times I've been debriefing on a candidate and their degree came up as a factor is zero. That's after hiring 100+ in SF and interviewing a # I don't want to think about.
I'm not saying I disbelieve your own POV, but bias can sometimes be hard to recognize, both in ourselves and others.
needlessly(1)
As a former dancer from a no name school I promise you no one cares. About the school. Or the dancing.
After years of professional experience and if you're a high contributing employee, then it doesn't matter. If you're a middle or slightly below average contributor then these things do factor in.
I'm fairly certain someone would get less job offers in a more conservative or religious city. They could luck out and never have HR/managers google their name, but were it known, religious folks don't tend to look favorably on that kind of hobby.
I don't think her school compensates for her hobby. It's location.
I don't think her school compensates for her hobby. It's location.
She went to MIT
This is a great article, but wow is the timing of its posting unfortunate.
symlinkk(2)
rdiddly(1)
[deleted]
tickthokk(2)
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
Let's keep tech inclusive and accepting and weird.
---
Before switching to software, I was a Research Associate at the Fred Hutch. At one point my Principal Investigator told me point-blank: "I don't expect to help you or motivate you, the other Research Associate, or the PostDocs much, because you all get paid far more than the Grad Students."
Being a manager and giving a bit of excitement and motivation is so easy. It's free! It's free to have a positive attitude and be excited for your work and let that be infectious. Yet my boss just decided not to do it. Academia biology research is so fucked.