←back to thread

I’m an Ex-Google Woman Tech Leader and I’m Sick of Our Approach to Diversity

(medium.com)
791 points 317070 | 3 comments | 14 Aug 17 16:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.646s | source
Show context
okreallywtf ◴[14 Aug 17 19:21 UTC] No.15011848[source]▶
I see some good points on both sides of the discussion here but one thing occurs to me about the current diversity-pushback that I'm seeing(I'm not going to call it anti-diversity because I think a fair amount of it is well-meaning or at least not explicitly hateful).

We've surprisingly quickly moved from periods where it was common to simply refuse to even consider minorities or women in many fields to a time when many people see political correctness and reverse-racism/sexism as a greater problem than sexism and racism themselves.

I'm glad to see people being very thoughtful about fairness and equality, but I have an honest question: Before quotas and social justice warriors, were you thinking about fairness and equality when the status quo potentially benefited you and excluded others not on their merit but race and gender? I'm asking honestly, not trying to point fingers but I would like to know because this community, while left-leaning on many issues (I think) tends more towards libertarian on issues of race and gender and seems especially defensive when it comes to the tech industry (especially when the term "privilege" is used, it turns downright hostile).

If you were active in supporting equality and diversity (by resisting arbitrarily exclusionary practices) when it wasn't popular to do so and now you are seeing the negative aspects of a push for artificial diversity I would like to know that.

If you have never even considered diversity issues until recently when seeing hiring practices that could negatively affect you I would like to know that too. Do you believe any specific action needs to be taken to promote diversity or will the problem solve itself, or does the problem even exist at all?

replies(7): >>15012205 #>>15012253 #>>15012385 #>>15012700 #>>15013773 #>>15013974 #>>15015686 #
canoebuilder ◴[15 Aug 17 05:13 UTC] No.15015686[source]▶
The key point of the Damore memo that many would do well to understand, it does not logically follow to say, "I've identified this "gap," therefore this "gap" is bad and it is caused by the big bad mean oppressive bullies, group X."

So, is the identified "gap" really that bad? No, not really, not much reason to think it's bad at all in many cases. Second, and most importantly, not only is the purported cause of big bad mean oppressive bullies lacking almost entirely in evidence, but there are actual explanations with mountains of evidence.

So what? What's the harm if I believe in one cause over another? People use to do raindances!

The harm is that sticking to an explanation of big bad mean oppressive bullies, means that whole classes of people are being not just accused but punished for "crimes" they did not commit. In fact there is no crime at all.

replies(1): >>15016654 #
nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 09:23 UTC] No.15016654[source]▶
> it does not logically follow to say, "I've identified this "gap," therefore this "gap" is bad and it is caused by the big bad mean oppressive bullies, group X.

This is a misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. No, the mere existence of a gender gap in an industry is not ipso facto evidence of sexism in that industry. After all, gender ratios in different industries vary widely, some industries have a higher ratio of women and others have a higher ratio of men. There mere existence of an imbalanced gender ratio in an industry, is not, in and of itself, problematic.

With that said, if you look at the tech industry, the constant stream of reports* of sexual harassment and sexist treatment from women that actually work in the industry is a pretty big clue that this industry, maybe, just maybe, has a problem with the way it treats women. And if you consider that female participation in the tech industry grew until the mid 80s where it peaked and has been going downhill ever since, it's difficult to conclude that the gender gap merely comes down to men and women having different interests.

So, no, the gender gap itself is not the problem. But it might be a symptom: if women feel like they are treated poorly in this industry, they are going to leave. Not because of lack of interest, or biological disposition, but because they do not feel welcome and are driven away due to the treatment they receive. And if that is causing the gender ratio in the industry to be lower than it would otherwise be, then that is problematic.

* Notable examples include but are not limited to:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/business/uber-sexual-hara...

https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/15/julie-ann-horvath-describe...

https://www.recode.net/2016/1/11/11588656/60-percent-of-seni...

http://observer.com/2017/06/justin-caldbeck-binary-capital-s...

replies(1): >>15018682 #
canoebuilder ◴[15 Aug 17 14:50 UTC] No.15018682[source]▶
female participation in the tech industry grew until the mid 80s where it peaked and has been going downhill ever since

I'm fairly certain that the aggregation of jobs described as "tech industry" in this statistic are a rather different collection of jobs pre-mid 80s and post-mid 80s. Not necessarily because of people massaging a statistic(but many people no doubt would be happy to overlook the previous supposition in making a case,) but because the nature of most jobs in computing has changed with the advent of personal computers. In the punch card era many "tech jobs" were more secretarial/office management/accountancy roles, nowadays with the explosion of computing devices there are many more software development and hardware engineering roles.

Engineering, broadly speaking can be seen as a "tech job," was there ever a time that the various fields of engineering weren't male heavy?

With that said, if you look at the tech industry

What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?

the constant stream of reports of sexual harassment and sexist treatment from women that actually work in the industry is a pretty big clue that this industry, maybe, just maybe, has a problem with the way it treats women

Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?

replies(1): >>15020668 #
1. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 17:59 UTC] No.15020668[source]▶
> I'm fairly certain that the aggregation of jobs described as "tech industry" in this statistic are a rather different collection of jobs pre-mid 80s and post-mid 80s. Not necessarily because of people massaging a statistic(but many people no doubt would be happy to overlook the previous supposition in making a case,) but because the nature of most jobs in computing has changed with the advent of personal computers. In the punch card era many "tech jobs" were more secretarial/office management/accountancy roles, nowadays with the explosion of computing devices there are many more software development and hardware engineering roles.

That's an interesting supposition but I'm not necessarily sure it's true. If you consider the number of women graduating with computer science degrees between then and now[1], the trend is the still there: growth until the mid 80s and then reversal. If the trend were merely explained by the fact that tech jobs have transitioned from "secretarial" jobs to engineering roles, why is it also present in the ratio of women studying actual computer science in college?

> What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?

Since my point is that the gender ratio itself is a red herring, I'm not sure what the purpose would be in speculating about its cause in other industries.

> Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?

That's your argument? That the level of sexual harassment in the tech industry is at a "normal" level relative to other industries and is simply over-reported?

It sounds like you're bending over backwards trying to justify the status quo here. But okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is simply over-reported. Does that make it any less problematic? Should we simply accept the situation as "well, that's just the way things are", instead of actively trying to improve it?

[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf

replies(1): >>15021931 #
2. canoebuilder ◴[15 Aug 17 20:13 UTC] No.15021931[source]▶
I don't think the sex ratios are a red herring at all. I think they are the entire point.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

If you look at this data you can see there is clear distinction in the types of work chosen on average between the sexes. These choices align nicely with the findings of personality research between the sexes.

It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.

The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.

Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.

You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.

What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?

In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.

I thought one the guiding principles for people these days was you shouldn't treat members in a group in a way that is informed by the actions or characteristics of other members of the group.

replies(1): >>15022685 #
3. nodamage ◴[15 Aug 17 21:16 UTC] No.15022685[source]▶
> If you look at this data you can see there is clear distinction in the types of work chosen on average between the sexes. These choices align nicely with the findings of personality research between the sexes.

I am not disputing this at all.

> It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.

Okay, we've found some common ground here. Let's go a little further. "The tech industry has a problem with sexual harassment and sexist treatment towards women." Agree or disagree?

> The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.

Except I did not say either of those things.

> Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.

> You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

> What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?

You don't need to convince me of this because I am not disputing it. I am disputing the idea that sexism has no role to play, however.

> In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.

That is a great platitude however it does not seem to be helping very much as we (as an industry) seem quite content to perpetuate the status quo.