6 ms·

> I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible mi

> I also worry that this nonsense will erode support for the kind of diversity I do defend, or worse, prompt some kind of revanchist backlash against visible minorities in general. As a women in tech, I am feeling the backlash. I have seen a huge increase in the amount of skepticism of my abilities that I face from people who haven't worked with me before. And the worst part of it is that there's actually logic behind the bigotry, because it is extremely true that my company continues to hire incompetent people just because they are women. Bigotry itself is very difficult to combat, but when you add in a solid logical grounding for the bigotry, it becomes dang near impossible to eradicate. I worry that companies are causing more harm than good with the change in hiring practices these past couple years. I continue to hear sexist comments from people who never would have said those sorts of things just five years ago.

dijonman2 4y ago
As a hiring manager I have substantial pressure to hire incompetent people to meet quotas. I confronted my recruiter in front of witnesses and was partially shunned. I have been hiring for many years, and I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity. Now I am forced to. It’s an insult to those who earned their position. It’s an insult to me as I am less and less likely to get a new job because I won’t fit quotas. There is resentment all around. I feel bad for the minorities who have worked hard to earn their positions, you are right that it undermines their work and trivializes their commitment to their work. It’s gone way too far.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  And that is illegal (assuming you are in the us)
  - concinds 4y ago
    Likely not. Saying "we will only hire women for this position" would be illegal, but saying it implicitly would not be. True quotas are unlawful, but there are many loopholes there.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    it is not, almost all big employers happily announce that they are Affirmative Action employers and this provides shield for their actions
    - polski-g 4y ago
      Private sector affirmative action is illegal in the US.
- tdeck 4y ago
  What are the specific quotas? Is there a percentage number you've been given?
- ParetoOptimal 4y ago
  > I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity What are your thoughts on implicit bias?
  - softawre 4y ago
    Implicit bias is real and there are ways to mitigate some of it. More process driven interview frameworks, less 'he seem like me so he probably good'.
    - omginternets 4y ago
      Define "real". It's definitely measurable in the lab, but the effect sizes aren't very impressive, and the link to real-world outcomes remains quite controversial.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  > Now I am forced to. You should think about legal recourse here. If this isn't stomped out it can result in real racism pretty quickly. It has to, because people aren't treated fairly and it creates adversary between people of different skin color. This is bad management that needs to be replaced.
  - stevendeluth 4y ago
    I was just interviewed at Microsoft last week and at the end of a very good interview the interviewer said welp we are looking to diversify our team more. Best of luck to you.
    - hitex 4y ago
      So why did they invite you to the interview in the first place if you are not diverse enough?
      - stevendeluth 4y ago
        I didn't disclose my race because getting a job should not be about the color of my skin but my merit.
AussieWog93 4y ago
>I continue to hear sexist comments from people who never would have said those sorts of things just five years ago. As a man in tech, I've been a part of countless hush-hush conversations that would never be repeated within earshot of a woman or untrusted man. It's as grim as you say, and worse. I'm really sorry that things have become like this.
- juliendorra 4y ago
  What do you mean by "things have become like this"? I obviously don’t know your age but the software industry (and other fields) has been extremely sexist since decades (at least the 80s). The efforts to explicitly reign in the sexism in tech are quite recent (late 2000, early 2010, and even later in France where I live). My point is that what you perceive as a recent reaction might be the same old sexist culture continuing to spread, ruin life’s and block careers (which is a definition of backlash: reactionary fight against feminist advances)
  - unconed 4y ago
    What evidence of this sexist culture do you have? There seem to be a few classic stories that have been spun: - that a gender imbalance in students or employees automatically implies sexism - that being casual about sex is automatically sexist - that not favoring a feminine, talkative, consensus-first working style is sexist - that women deciding to leave tech means they are being "chased out" I don't find any of these arguments particularly convincing. It seems like misogyny usually just means "something a woman hates" as opposed to actual overt discrimination and mistreatment. What you may be referring to from the early 2010s is that a few activists of the Adria Richards type found that all they had to do was cry sexism, and a bunch of naive geeks stood ready to self flaggelate about how sexist all the other men were, but not them, no no no. Which of course means that tech is not particularly sexist at all, certainly not compared to media or finance. If there is one thing that is unabashedly sexist, it's western feminism, which has had 50 years to show its homework, and has revealed itself to not be interested in gender equality, but only in advancing female interests and positing women's rights, preferences and working styles as superior to those of men. Strangely, despite this long track record, feminists still haven't realized that they are the status quo and they do everything they can to maintain a monopoly on gender discussions and issues. The use of words like "reactionary" is meant to emphasize this: that anyone who does not agree with them is trying to go backwards. But this is a lie, because despite their "gender studies" we understand men and women worse than ever before. Many of these same activists now even refuse to define what a woman actually is, but they are all sure that women have it worse. Funny that.
treeman79 4y ago
Had a few times in the last 10 years. Where I was pushed very hard to hire someone either completely unqualified, or in we we simply didn’t need. Like being told to hire a bash programmer for a database admin position. Because person was trans. Thinking back on if. I’ve never had a regular white woman pushed on me. I’ve hired woman before. But that was because they were qualified. Now I’m considered evil for looking at merit.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
majani 4y ago
Of late I have been seeing people going viral for posting some incredible career trajectories. Usually involving someone in another career who made the switch to tech by doing a bootcamp, and within a year they were in FAANG. Now that I think about it, they were all people who fit into diversity quotas and were probably diversity hires
thingification 4y ago
Not questioning what you're saying, just adding that I think "prejudice" is a better word for this than bigotry? (to be clear: we're discussing here the results of identity-based hiring practices, as opposed to are there sex differences in programming ability) Words never have entirely cleanly defined meanings, but broadly I think bigotry is often used to speak specifically of all-out irrational dogmatic beliefs. Prejudice is more often used where there is some partly rational judgement about a group of people, together with moral problems caused by applying that logic to a particular person. Of course, often our prejudices are very fallible: "rational" prejudices turn out to be wrong, and in that sense are functionally equivalent to bigotry. But holding a "rational" belief that all prejudice is irrational also does not make us infallible! Some prejudice seems hard to criticize morally: for example, everybody makes prejudiced judgements say based partly on clothing, age, and sex if they find themselves in close proximity to a group of young men in a city at night. On the other hand, at work, one tries hard to not judge based on whatever preconceived group notions one has -- I think almost everybody thinks that's a good thing (which as you say can be harmed by identity-based hiring). I don't have a good abstract explanation of what makes the difference between "good" and "bad" prejudice, and I wish I did, so would love to hear of good writing about it if somebody can recommend some! In the company I worked for recently, perhaps even a majority of the more capable programmers around me happened to be women. But wherever we do start hiring based on identity, it's hard to see how prejudice can be avoided, even if bigotry were entirely absent.

dijonman2 4y ago

As a hiring manager I have substantial pressure to hire incompetent people to meet quotas. I confronted my recruiter in front of witnesses and was partially shunned. I have been hiring for many years, and I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity. Now I am forced to. It’s an insult to those who earned their position. It’s an insult to me as I am less and less likely to get a new job because I won’t fit quotas. There is resentment all around. I feel bad for the minorities who have worked hard to earn their positions, you are right that it undermines their work and trivializes their commitment to their work. It’s gone way too far.

chrismcb 4y ago
And that is illegal (assuming you are in the us)
- concinds 4y ago
  Likely not. Saying "we will only hire women for this position" would be illegal, but saying it implicitly would not be. True quotas are unlawful, but there are many loopholes there.
- slt2021 4y ago
  it is not, almost all big employers happily announce that they are Affirmative Action employers and this provides shield for their actions
  - polski-g 4y ago
    Private sector affirmative action is illegal in the US.
tdeck 4y ago
What are the specific quotas? Is there a percentage number you've been given?
ParetoOptimal 4y ago
> I truly pay no attention to gender or ethnicity What are your thoughts on implicit bias?
- softawre 4y ago
  Implicit bias is real and there are ways to mitigate some of it. More process driven interview frameworks, less 'he seem like me so he probably good'.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Define "real". It's definitely measurable in the lab, but the effect sizes aren't very impressive, and the link to real-world outcomes remains quite controversial.
raxxorraxor 4y ago
> Now I am forced to. You should think about legal recourse here. If this isn't stomped out it can result in real racism pretty quickly. It has to, because people aren't treated fairly and it creates adversary between people of different skin color. This is bad management that needs to be replaced.
- stevendeluth 4y ago
  I was just interviewed at Microsoft last week and at the end of a very good interview the interviewer said welp we are looking to diversify our team more. Best of luck to you.
  - hitex 4y ago
    So why did they invite you to the interview in the first place if you are not diverse enough?
    - stevendeluth 4y ago
      I didn't disclose my race because getting a job should not be about the color of my skin but my merit.

AussieWog93 4y ago

>I continue to hear sexist comments from people who never would have said those sorts of things just five years ago. As a man in tech, I've been a part of countless hush-hush conversations that would never be repeated within earshot of a woman or untrusted man. It's as grim as you say, and worse. I'm really sorry that things have become like this.

juliendorra 4y ago
What do you mean by "things have become like this"? I obviously don’t know your age but the software industry (and other fields) has been extremely sexist since decades (at least the 80s). The efforts to explicitly reign in the sexism in tech are quite recent (late 2000, early 2010, and even later in France where I live). My point is that what you perceive as a recent reaction might be the same old sexist culture continuing to spread, ruin life’s and block careers (which is a definition of backlash: reactionary fight against feminist advances)
- unconed 4y ago
  What evidence of this sexist culture do you have? There seem to be a few classic stories that have been spun: - that a gender imbalance in students or employees automatically implies sexism - that being casual about sex is automatically sexist - that not favoring a feminine, talkative, consensus-first working style is sexist - that women deciding to leave tech means they are being "chased out" I don't find any of these arguments particularly convincing. It seems like misogyny usually just means "something a woman hates" as opposed to actual overt discrimination and mistreatment. What you may be referring to from the early 2010s is that a few activists of the Adria Richards type found that all they had to do was cry sexism, and a bunch of naive geeks stood ready to self flaggelate about how sexist all the other men were, but not them, no no no. Which of course means that tech is not particularly sexist at all, certainly not compared to media or finance. If there is one thing that is unabashedly sexist, it's western feminism, which has had 50 years to show its homework, and has revealed itself to not be interested in gender equality, but only in advancing female interests and positing women's rights, preferences and working styles as superior to those of men. Strangely, despite this long track record, feminists still haven't realized that they are the status quo and they do everything they can to maintain a monopoly on gender discussions and issues. The use of words like "reactionary" is meant to emphasize this: that anyone who does not agree with them is trying to go backwards. But this is a lie, because despite their "gender studies" we understand men and women worse than ever before. Many of these same activists now even refuse to define what a woman actually is, but they are all sure that women have it worse. Funny that.

treeman79 4y ago

Had a few times in the last 10 years. Where I was pushed very hard to hire someone either completely unqualified, or in we we simply didn’t need. Like being told to hire a bash programmer for a database admin position. Because person was trans. Thinking back on if. I’ve never had a regular white woman pushed on me. I’ve hired woman before. But that was because they were qualified. Now I’m considered evil for looking at merit.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

majani 4y ago

Of late I have been seeing people going viral for posting some incredible career trajectories. Usually involving someone in another career who made the switch to tech by doing a bootcamp, and within a year they were in FAANG. Now that I think about it, they were all people who fit into diversity quotas and were probably diversity hires

thingification 4y ago

Not questioning what you're saying, just adding that I think "prejudice" is a better word for this than bigotry? (to be clear: we're discussing here the results of identity-based hiring practices, as opposed to are there sex differences in programming ability) Words never have entirely cleanly defined meanings, but broadly I think bigotry is often used to speak specifically of all-out irrational dogmatic beliefs. Prejudice is more often used where there is some partly rational judgement about a group of people, together with moral problems caused by applying that logic to a particular person. Of course, often our prejudices are very fallible: "rational" prejudices turn out to be wrong, and in that sense are functionally equivalent to bigotry. But holding a "rational" belief that all prejudice is irrational also does not make us infallible! Some prejudice seems hard to criticize morally: for example, everybody makes prejudiced judgements say based partly on clothing, age, and sex if they find themselves in close proximity to a group of young men in a city at night. On the other hand, at work, one tries hard to not judge based on whatever preconceived group notions one has -- I think almost everybody thinks that's a good thing (which as you say can be harmed by identity-based hiring). I don't have a good abstract explanation of what makes the difference between "good" and "bad" prejudice, and I wish I did, so would love to hear of good writing about it if somebody can recommend some! In the company I worked for recently, perhaps even a majority of the more capable programmers around me happened to be women. But wherever we do start hiring based on identity, it's hard to see how prejudice can be avoided, even if bigotry were entirely absent.