Is it Sexist to Recruit Women in Tech? | Hacker News Reader

Is it Sexist to Recruit Women in Tech?

julieannhorvath.com

29 pointstyre53 comments

This is a common topic of discussion on HN.

I'll risk downvotes to create a discussion in a sometimes touchy subject.

STEM fields aren't the only ones with large gender imbalances. Others include elementary school teaching, nursing, garbage collecting, road maintenance, and many others.

Are there efforts to recruit men to become elementary school teachers on the scale to promote women in STEM field?

Are there efforts to recruit women into construction and collecting garbage?

Why or why not? I don't have the answers, although I don't think male-only scholarships exist to promote male teachers (though I think society would benefit from it) nor female-only apprenticeships to promote women going into construction or garbage collection (though I think society would benefit from it, and would probably result in making the fields safer).

I'm curious what people say. If nothing else, if we find successes in some areas we may be able to replicate them in others.

> This is a common topic of discussion on HN.

All of your questions have been answered, very many times, in all of those other threads.

There are efforts to recruit men as teachers, nurses, therapists and other female dominated professions. There are efforts to recruit women in construction.

Garbage collection is seen as an undesirable job (for both men and women) so I don't think there are efforts to recruit anyone :).

Desirable jobs don't need to recruit, because they are desirable.

> Are there efforts to recruit men to become elementary school teachers on the scale to promote women in STEM field? Are there efforts to recruit women into construction and collecting garbage?

If there aren't there should be.

The world is magic. Programming is amazing. Building houses is an incredibly powerful experience. Learning from someone who looks like you and knows more than you can be transformative. These are experiences that every person deserves, and any person of any race or gender, should they be interested in these experiences, deserves a shot at them.

Any time we see a phenomenon breaking down along gender or race lines, when skin color and genitals are not involved, that's a red flag that people are being excluded for silly reasons.

Any time we see a phenomenon breaking down along gender or race lines, when skin color and genitals are not involved, that's a red flag that people are being excluded for silly reasons.

Well that's a sweeping statement if I ever saw one. Are you prepared to stand behind it? I'll give you a moment to reconsider.

Edit: Seriously, you all believe that any time there is a gender disparity not involving genitals, it is happening for "silly reasons"? There is not one job where gender-related phenotypes might naturally result in skewed distribution?

I have to agree with you here (mostly with the edit).

Differences between genders do not boil down to just the shape of the genitals; there are significant physical and psychological differences, so it is only to be expected that there will be gender disparities occuring. It seems to me that the very talk about sexism is starting to be a "silly reason" for changing things.

Yeah, I admit the comment pre-edit was pretty snarky. The edit expanded on what I was referring to.

There are certainly differences between the sexes beyond genitals.

But that's not the hypothesis that's being pushed. The hypothesis being pushed is

"the percentage of programmers is skewed because of genetic differences between men and women"

The trouble is no evidence, nor can I even imagine a study that could gather evidence, which could validate that hypothesis over this one:

"the percentage of programmers is skewed because of differences in how men and women are treated"

Maybe you don't care about having scientific evidence for your belief and it's coming from elsewhere. I respect that... I think there are lots of valid ways of knowing and I'd be excited to hear about yours.

But my strategy is to assume different "kinds" of people are equivalent unless there is some scientifically sound evidence to the contrary. And there is simply no solid evidence that genetic differences between men and women (or different races) are a factor in the kinds of distribution differences that we're talking about.

Some people like to chain together a set of very tenuous conclusions from very shaky studies to support that idea, but for me as a scholar it just doesn't hold water.

But that's not the hypothesis that's being pushed. The hypothesis being pushed is...

Please. That is not the hypothesis that is being pushed. Nowhere did I argue if there are gender disparities, it is because of gender differences. I was specifically objecting to the opposite notion, if there are gender disparities, it cannot possibly be because of gender differences. The scholar in you ought to understand that distinction, and why it is important if we are to have a logical discussion...

> if there are gender disparities, it cannot possibly be because of gender differences.

That's not what I said at all. I said if there are gender disparities that's a red flag. Red flag, meaning we should go and check and see what's going on because something is fishy.

I used the term "red flag" very intentionally. I'll give you a moment to reconsider.

I like Mike Monteiro's perspective: we have to give a hand up to the people who have been held down.

I'll jump into this touchy subject. The reason why there are not efforts to balance the other fields you mention is because of the "position of power"/"social prestige" of said jobs. I don't think anyone can debate that due to complicated social/economic issues, but significantly sexism/racism, the history of USA shows that jobs with power/prestige are usually held by white males. Oprah Winfrey crying at Obama's speech wouldn't of happened if Obama just became the first black garbage man. It was about the power/prestige of a black man being USA president. Sexism pretty much puts women as teachers & nurses and "men"(or society in general) is apparently fine with that. Road maintenance, garbage collection? Those are low-prestige & physical/dirty work. That's for minorities & men. Society(sexism) probably prevents most women from even considering those jobs and the few that do, I'm sure are greeted with an insane amount of inappropriate jokes/comments. Now, since positions of power/prestige tend to have a much greater impact on overall society, having some balance in those positions will help make products & laws more diverse to reflect the diverse society we're in. BTW, this is why I find it ridiculous the concept of exclusively men making laws on abortion.

Anecdotal: When I was a kid, I had to take some kind of "development" test to see if I was generally progressing properly. I failed that test, the results stated things such as "No solid understanding of reality vs fantasy". My parents were livid. They went to school to complain. Turns out, a lot of parents were complaining. Also turns out, all the complaining parents were foreigners. And it also turned out that the questions on the test had a heavy assumption that you were an american child with american parents. I didn't know what a pizza was when I was a kid; that's one of the questions I bombed. My parents never got it for me; at least not yet. The school ended up having to put the test-questions through some kind of minority/foreign-parents verification process and re-do the tests for everyone.

Historically, programming was low-prestige as well.

And sysadmins are basically a combination of an janitor and mechanic that works on computers, keeping the lights working and the machine buzzing.

True, but the background required for it... math & science, that was historically a "man's skill"(sexism). Women went to school for things related to home-making, if they went to school at all.

That's why this story has an impact: http://braythwayt.com/posterous/2012/03/29/a-womans-story.ht...

EDIT: Wow, this story fell off the frontpage fast...

I think you have your timelines mixed up a bit. In 1995, right before the tech bubble, programming was definitely low prestige and women were definitely already well educated, earning about half of the college degrees.

In fact, there's a direct cause and effect going on--programming became high prestige, which caused the feminist hullabaloo about not having enough women programmers that we see today. If programming was already high prestige this would not be news to us and there would already be more women programmers, just as people in the past were obsessed with having more women doctors and lawyers and now there are lots of them.

You claim to "risk downvotes". Women like Kathy Sierra risk — no, get — death and assault threats against their families. (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...)

"I don't have the answers..." Well, evidence is but a google away. We might discover commonsense answers, like from the founder of MenTeach: "If you started paying teachers $150,000 per year, you'd see a lot of guys going into the field". (http://www.edutopia.org/male-teacher-shortage)

I know many closeminded software devs who turn out bad product. Why would they turn down their cushy programming job, to be a deunionized elementary schoolteacher? And if we know that males dominate well-paying jobs like software dev... is it surprising that females get a higher proportion of lower-status jobs?

The claim, "if we find successes in some areas we may be able to replicate them in others", doesn't map to the real world. When females couldn't serve jury duty, were males merely waiting for female jury-duty successes? Or did it require firm activism to force humanity to improve?

> "I don't have the answers..." Well, evidence is but a google away. We might discover commonsense answers, like from the founder of MenTeach: "If you started paying teachers $150,000 per year, you'd see a lot of guys going into the field". (http://www.edutopia.org/male-teacher-shortage)

And who knows where he got that number from, based on that article. High school teachers are payed more than elementary teachers? Fine, but is that the only difference between teaching in elementary school and high school? Of course not.

> I know many closeminded software devs who turn out bad product. Why would they turn down their cushy programming job, to be a deunionized elementary schoolteacher? And if we know that males dominate well-paying jobs like software dev... is it surprising that females get a higher proportion of lower-status jobs?

Whether being a software developer is higher status than being a teacher is debatable. Teachers are seen as the people that mold the up and coming generations, by some. Programmers? More like the unseen maintenance workers of a subway station: as long as everything works as expected, no one cares. Well, they might appreciate some flashy mobile app these days, though.

Women don't seem to have any problems pursuing careers as doctors and lawyers, professions with both good pay and status. While the those money-hungry men seem to be falling a little behind compared to them, either falling behind academically or quitting the academic route entirely, going into a more hands-on profession (that might be lucrative, or might 'break your back' prematurely, or both).

Please don't mention how you think people will vote on your comment. It essentially becomes a dare.

Yes. If you're discriminating on the basis of gender, how is that not sexist?

If men were being prevented or dissuaded from entering the tech industry then sure, that would be sexist.

Efforts to counter sexism against women are not sexist against men.

Using violence to counter violence is still violence. Using sexism to counter sexism is still sexism. Simply put, An eye for an eye will always leave two blind people no matter how justified one feels it is.

I do not consider it discriminatory to make an extra effort to recruit an under-represented group. Hence, I don't see this as "sexism to fight sexism."

I do.

Which is fair enough. I'm not going to get into that. I just wanted to point out the fundamental assumption in the notion of "fighting sexism with sexism."

That depends on what you mean by countering sexism. Telling your co-workers that they should treat the women they work with with the same respect they show to their male co-workers isn't sexist. Saying that you need to recruit more women is.

Using a definition that simple, most people in the world are deeply sexist.

Yes, and...?

When someone self-identifies as 'not a sexist' they also implicitly identify as a liar. To think we can ever get past discrimination -- sex, race, or whatever -- is extremely naive. It is as fundamental to us as making the distinction between 'me' and 'not me'.

The issue starts to become semantic. If by "discrimination" we just mean "recognizing differences and making decisions based on those differences," then it obviously shouldn't carry a stigma. But usually "discrimination" is being used to refer to unfair or undesirable decisions based on differences, and in this case we need to define what is and isn't fair or desirable.

If you take action based on a recognition of difference, a value judgement is implied. For example choosing action A over B implies a preference for action A, even if you don't consciously think of it that way. So it is hard to see how any human endeavour can ever be free of discrimination in the moral sense you're talking about. Every decision we make discriminates against someone or something in an 'unfair' manner, basically.

But why are all preferences "unfair"? What about preferences in partners, i.e. heterosexuality or homosexuality?

You're confusing -ist and -ism.

Men are better drivers = Sexist

Men are better drivers, so let's not hire women = Sexism

So then:

Women are more attractive to me = sexist

Women are more attractive to me, therefore I choose to only date women = sexism

Yup. And?

As somebody who is in a hiring position and aspires to a more gender-balanced work-place, I've found it really disheartening that so few applicants are female. We have mostly male developers and leadership, so I understand that a female coming into our office might not feel particularly attracted to it. I guess it is a slow process to try to improve that situation.

I don't think that having mostly men as coworkers is a deterrent. I had a conversation with a co-worker about general work life in our company. There are no work from home opportunities and no paid time off for maternity leave. Most of my (male and female) coworkers like the idea of a work from home or alternative work schedule (4x10 or 9x9 days) but only women commented about better maternity practices. Don't be disheartened by the few number of applicants, that's more due to there being less women in general with the skills needed. I agree don't hire for token numbers, but work on retention, see what keeps them.

Also work with community to encourage both boys and girls into your field. Women get discouraged not when its time to find a job, it starts when they are learning what they are supposed to do (good and bad of gender roles).

A previous discussion on HN mentioned good successes with out-reach programs. It seems the best method to get a larger number of female applicants, and it thankfully work fine without the need of affirmative action or other similar sexist methods.

The problem is that some discrimination of applicants based on "culture" reasons are considered acceptable, while others aren't. For example, it would be generally be considered acceptable for a fast-iterating early-stage startup to not hire a competent engineer who is more comfortable with longer release cycles that are highly-spec'd and polished, but unacceptable to not hire a competent engineer who is much older than the rest of the team, even though both engineers might not fit into the team's culture and therefore both hires might hurt team productivity.

Is it racist to recruit Black's and Hispanic's in Tech? Asian's in Hollywood, Politics, and Sports?

I don't think it is sexist, but I think its misguided. Maybe I lack the data, but it seems to me that forcibly encouraging companies to hire more women only seems to mask the real problem. Is the problem really top-down or is it bottom up?

For example, a couple months ago I read this report on bitcoin adoption that said bitcoin users were 92% male. If we assume this report is correct, then why? If bitcoin, (pretend with me here), is going to be the next driver in the global economy, why is it so heavily male dominated? Bitcoin is fairly anonymous and low entry. Now in our world where Bitcoin rules, if our bitcoin overlords were 92% male, who do we blame for this gender homogeneity?

Now, I may be ignorant in the latest innovations of public schooling, but is the problem that "Brogrammers" are refusing to hire women, or are women just not entering into CS/STEM tracks, and if the problem is the latter, wouldn't it be more sustainable to force our efforts into public schooling rather than constantly remind HN that if our company doesn't have a female mixer we are doing it wrong?

I really hope I'm right with this, and I'm really excited for BlackGirlsCode (http://www.blackgirlscode.com/). With this organization's efforts I hope in the next 10-15 years we see a growth of talented female/black developers leading to a more concentrated effort on the source of this problem.

There are many gradients of inequality, and only one true equality. Anything that isn't true equality is inequality.

Is giving a helping hand to disadvantaged minorities an exercise in promotion of equality? I don't think so. So is it a bad thing? Not always.

> I remember I was helping out a friend with a side project after work one day. We sat down and spent the night writing code together. It was just so...easy. To get along, to get on the same page, our arguments were productive and from the minute we sat down together there was an immediate sense that we respected each other.

She get's along better with a person that has more in common with her. The outcome of this is kind of ironic, if you think that the purpose of these initiatives is 'diversity'.

That's the part that I found a little funny too. Sure, it's a lot more pleasant to work closely with somebody you get along well with, but I don't really see what gender has to do with that. I guess she doesn't get along with the men she works with all that well, but being a guy myself, I don't necessarily enjoy working closely with every guy I've worked with just because we're both men. If there were 50 women developers at her company, would she enjoy working with every one of them? Or if there are 50 men and she doesn't enjoy working with any of them, then that's a little odd too.

She probably gets along great with her male colleagues. But if she is straight (I don't know if she is), and she was with a straight, male colleague after work, and spent "the night writing code together", there would probably be at least some romantic tension.

At work, it's possible to have none, because everyone is a professional and we all understand the boundaries. But once you're electing to spend time with a person outside of work hours, then it can become ambiguous, and one party may feel compelled to say "By the way, this isn't a date...". If she is straight, and she is spending time with a straight female colleague, then that tension is not present at all.

When you're a straight guy, working almost exclusively with straight guys, then this doesn't have to enter your thinking.

This is real life we're talking about, not a romantic comedy.

I don't see how what I described has anything to do with a romantic comedy. I think it's completely reasonable that women may not feel immediately comfortable spending after-work time with male colleagues. But, with a fellow female colleague, there is no ambiguity.

> I think it's completely reasonable that women may not feel immediately comfortable spending after-work time with male colleagues.

Yes, that might be the case for a lot of women. In Saudi Arabia.

I'm not sure I follow this logic. She fessed up to pushing a sexist hiring policy and then tried to justify it by explaining it's just because she enjoys working with other females more?

Well, I enjoy a good laugh... and sexist jokes often make me laugh. Should I apologize?... I feel like I should.

I'll believe that "tech" is interested in diversity when it stops being married to nerd-culture. Tech seems to be just as homogenus as any other subculture, and people within it actively encourage it with trying to playfully out-nerd each other with whatever slightly obsessive quirks are in vogue.

> "I'll believe that "tech" is interested in diversity when it stops being married to nerd-culture."

I hope that will never happen. Being a nerd is not a fashion statement, it's a way of thinking, which happens to drive the progress of technology.

But is the nerd "way of thinking" the only way to achieve things like that? Or is it just that being mired in such a homogeneous culture makes it seem like the two are inextricably and inevitably linked?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com