Comment by MadeThisToReply | Hacker News Reader

Comment by MadeThisToReply | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

MadeThisToReply

It all starts with the dubious (to say the least) premise that men and women are exactly the same. Both sexes on average want the same things, like the same things, are interested in the same things, and have the same priorities and proclivities.

Therefore, in a just world, we'd see an exact 50/50 ratio of men and women in every possible occupation, because there are no differences between men and women, therefore the only possible explanation for non-parity anywhere is because some kind of "systemic" factor is unfairly preventing one of the sexes from achieving the career results that they obviously want.

And if men and women don't want the same things on average, then that itself is a symptom of some kind of systemic problem. Because biology plays no role in human psychology; we're the only species in the animal kingdom to come into this world with no pre-programming and absolutely everything that we do is the result of cultural conditioning. So men and women could be exactly the same if only more parents would let their sons play with Barbie and their daughters play with GI Joe.

There are some extreme but isolated examples of people who are disposed to this opinion, but more commonly the objection to fields being dominated by one gender or the other is because those workplaces, as this study points out, can't seem to stop themselves from discriminating and gatekeeping against those of the other gender. While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance. This feedback loop ends up pushing out people of the non-dominant gender who want nothing more than to work in that field but are constantly and systemically met with prejudice and disenfranchisement.

It would be nice to deftly and precisely ameliorate this issue by just being able to say “stop acting in a sexually discriminating way because you're impeding someone's will,” and have it be so. But there are still far too many people who are willing to abet the discrimination either silently or willfully, writing the disparity off as a “natural outcome of biology.” So the alternative way to establish justice is the sledgehammer approach that equates the unequal representation with inequity. Because that is _also_ true.

> While it should in theory be no problem that a workplace is 90% men and 10% women because they live in a platonic ideal where they've been free to attain to their true ambition that is influenced by biological traits related to sex, in reality, once one gender gains enough dominance in a field or workplace, sexual discrimination, harassment, and gatekeeping end up deepening the imbalance.

The assumption that an industry that has a large gender imbalance will inevitably end up discriminating against the minority gender is incorrect. Plenty of studies have shown tech companies to actually favor women in hiring:

Tech companies were more likely to give callbacks to female applicants: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484

Modulating people to sound like the opposite gender in coding interviews actually hurts women and helps men: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-ma...

There are policies that can eliminate bias: Strip names and identifying information out of resumes before recruiters see them. Modulate voices in interviews to eliminate ability to infer gender or foreign accents, and use no video so as to prevent people from identifying races. The problem is that this often doesn't produce the results people are expecting.

Why focusing on hiring?

The comment you're answering to is talking about harassment and gatekeeping.

Hiring is one gate, but if you're hired just to reach gender goals or to satisfy the lust of your new manager, you will not have the same experience at the company than someone from the other gender. Like getting raises or being promoted.

Things are complicated.

How do we quantify "discrimination and gatekeeping"? Focusing on hiring makes sense because it's the gate that you need to pass through to join the company. It's by far the most important form of gatekeeping, and the one with the most influence over the representation of the company. It's also where I see the most focus on attempting to "fix" the imbalance, but introducing policies to favor underrepresented groups. I've worked at multiple companies with overt affirmative action programs in favor of women.

Other factors like harassment are important, but again the evidence doesn't seem to suggest it's responsible for gender imbalances. Engineering has one of the lower rates of harassment among professional industries (32%) less than plenty of industries with more balanced gender representation like healthcare (35%) and media (41%) [1]. And this is just among white-collar industries, service industries and blue collar industries are by far even worse [2].

1. https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/media-industry-sexual-hara...

2. https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/21/16685942/sexual-ha...

I'll concede this probably does happen to varying extents in some (but not all) workplaces. But since it seems we're in agreement that it isn't the only factor at play, I'm sure you can see why using unequal outcomes as the sole evidence of discrimination in any specific workplace or industry is flawed.

Furthermore, I would argue that even in cases where discrimination is actually occurring, "stop acting in a sexually discriminating way because you're impeding someone's will" can be the only just solution to the problem. The alternative of actively and intentionally discriminating against other people in the majority group who did nothing wrong is unacceptable, both because it does nothing to address the root of the problem, and because discrimination on the basis of irrelevant factors like sex is wrong regardless of who the target of that discrimination is.

What's worse is when people use unequal outcomes as the sole justification for actively discriminating against majority groups, because now not only are you perpetrating these injustices in the pursuit of an ideal percentage of men and woman in the industry, but you're also running the risk of being wrong about what that ideal percentage is in the first place, actively pushing men and women into roles they wouldn't naturally choose in an ideal world where unjust discrimination didn't exist.

“Stop discriminating,” by itself frequently doesn't cut it, though. And when it doesn't, playing to the numbers is another tool to use to attempt to reach a just equilibrium. It gives the minority gender a means of establishing networks of power, gaining positions of authority that can shift the culture and reduce the gatekeeping. While it may be true that deliberately aiming for a ratio stands the chance of disenfranchising some qualified people, the existing situation quite possibly does the same but we don't know it. Survivorship bias and default bias make it very difficult to discern whether the existing ratio is appropriately reflective of the population's nature.

I understand the point you're making that ratio targeting seems immune to indications that a different natural ratio exists that differs from the imposed one, but I argue there is sensitivity to negative feedback. If there really is a natural sample ratio that differs materially from that found in the broader population, businesses will eventually be unable to hire according to the ratio. The danger is of course setting up a system that's wholly immune to that possibility and risk coming to lay upon a Procrustean bed. But I think profit motive is sufficient to dampen that risk. Businesses who are simply unable to find and hire qualified candidates who fulfill their target ratio will abandon that ratio by degrees.

> Because biology plays no role in human psychology; we're the only species in the animal kingdom to come into this world with no pre-programming and absolutely everything that we do is the result of cultural conditioning.

I suspect when these people finally cede on biological differences between the genders, they will just argue that these biological differences themselves are a product of our sinful and fallen world. Don't underestimate the incredible portability of these folks' goalposts.

Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture. That’s why you often see sisters and brothers being very different even though they were brought up the same way. Also, you can’t make somebody have a high IQ through culture. It is a biological trait. And your IQ has a high impact on how you perceived the world and learn.

> Nope. All evidence shows that human psychology is a mix of biology and culture.

Who are you nope-ing? Because your comment aligns to my beliefs just fine…

I thought the same thing, if you used quotation marks it would have been a little clearer you were quoting someone my 2 cents

Re read that post with the quotes too, it aligns with yours as well.

Might not get that impression just from the selected quote, but initial part makes it clear.

Block quotes (>) are standard practice on HN. Never had anyone get confused by them before…

I must have misunderstood your comments then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com