Comment by mpweiher | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mpweiher | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

1. There is no contradiction (I)

When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination.

2. There is no contradiction (II)

The point I was making was about what gets published. It didn't get published.

3. There is no contradiction (III)

Please look again at the introductory sentence of the report: men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving

"Roughly the same rates for the same reasons".

I repeat: "roughly the same rates for the same reasons".

That it isn't exactly the same rates and not exactly the same reasons is not a contradiction, because "exactly" wasn't claimed. It is added nuance and details that does not in any way shape or form contradict the original finding.

And it isn't "my narrative", it is what the researchers found. So it ain't a "narrative", it is the empirical data, and it isn't "mine", it is the reality as found by those researchers.

> When you have different inputs and different outputs, that's not discrimination.

Perhaps you are unaware of the legal concept of "disparate impact": https://www.britannica.com/topic/disparate-impact

disparate impact, judicial theory developed in the United States that allows challenges to employment or educational practices that are nondiscriminatory on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on members of legally protected groups.

For example, if a company's policy is "No employee is allowed to pump breast milk anywhere on premises, even behind closed doors, regardless of gender," it disproportionately impacts women even if men are also banned from the same activity.

Perhaps I am aware that, to add the part of the article you left out:

However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time.

So it's a fairly fringe legal theory with little impact.

There are lots of fringe theories, for example some claim that the earth is flat. I don't have to accommodate all of them.

Disparate impact is illegal, so it's not a "fringe legal theory".

If you don't see anything wrong with my example of disparate impact, how about a hypothetical company policy that has a dress code of short hair for all engineers regardless of gender? More women than men would quit, seeing the policy as draconian and controlling (or be fired for non-compliance), while men who already have short hair wouldn't find the policy onerous or difficult.

> it's not a "fringe legal theory"

1. It is a legal theory

"judicial theory". -- your source

2. Fringe

"federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. As a result, disparate-impact suits have become less successful over time."

Also your source.

3. Off topic

a) The research I cited was not about fringe legal theories but about reality in the world.

b) I am not interested in your hypotheticals that have nothing to do with that research, nothing to do with the publishing bias against research showing no bias against women or bias against men, and probably also nothing to do with the actual legal theory of disparate impact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com