Can Fandoms Fix Tech's Gender Gap?

[dannyf]

Presumably they will claim I'm trying to brainwash people

No. To brainwash someone, you would need understanding, careful planning and constructing of a trap, not to mention reading people and navigating around their EQ.

I don't think you have demonstrated any trace of such capabilities.

[dannyf]

what people are misinterpreting

It is always other people's fault ("misinterpreting" you in this case). You are always right.

[mtdoc]

What is for sure is that women have essentially the same opportunities as men in the field, and this is all that's needed to end the debate. The rest is white noise.

That may or may not be true. I honestly don't know. But surely there is room for honest debate, no?

I do think that if it was true, the most militant feminists would still insist that it wasn't and that if it wasn't true, it would be difficult for many male engineers to see that. We all have our blind spots.

It seems to me likely that there are probably some smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a female engineer, no matter how qualified. I think it's equally likely that there are many that would (even if they haven't yet). The hard part if you're a woman  who doesn't get the job, is knowing which it is. The smart ones will not waste time worrying about that though and just move on.

But as I said in my earlier post, I think it is likely multi factorial and overt discrimination is probably a rare event- but I don't know.

[Tallie]

Room for debate? Yes. 26 pages of it so far... let's have a show of hands... who has changed their mind? Anyone? Anyone?

[zapta]

Room for debate? Yes. 26 pages of it so far... let's have a show of hands... who has changed their mind? Anyone? Anyone?

I changed my mind about Mojo Chan.  Seriously.

[rolycat]

Room for debate? Yes. 26 pages of it so far... let's have a show of hands... who has changed their mind? Anyone? Anyone?

I don't think debate is necessarily about overtly changing people's minds. If you're lucky maybe it gets them to think a little more carefully about the subject.

If I didn't find this thread entertaining and at least mildly informative I would have stopped reading and contributing long ago. How about you?

[EEVblog]

What is for sure is that women have essentially the same opportunities as men in the field, and this is all that's needed to end the debate. The rest is white noise.

That may or may not be true. I honestly don't know. But surely there is room for honest debate, no?

Sure, anything can be debated, but I think the debate is pretty much over the noise these days. A debate over storm in a teacup.
A generation ago, sure, it was a major problem, but these days the gender fight has been essentially won.

I do think that if it was true, the most militant feminists would still insist that it wasn't and that if it wasn't true, it would be difficult for many male engineers to see that. We all have our blind spots.

But it's demonstrably true that there are no shortage of successful female engineers. Sure the numbers aren't high relative to males for the traditional societal reasons mentioned and the limited time (sub one generation) to allow change, but we are still talking a lot in any case.
That fact alone says there must be by and large generally equal opportunity.
And IME that seems to be true.

It seems to me likely that there are probably some smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a female engineer, no matter how qualified.

Sure, just like there are smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a *insert anything on the list I have posted*
And this is want I am getting at, sure gender discrimination happens, but so does discrimination for countless other things. Gender issues get to take a number like every other issue.

I think it's equally likely that there are many that would (even if they haven't yet). The hard part if you're a woman  who doesn't get the job, is knowing which it is. The smart ones will not waste time worrying about that though and just move on.

Bingo, and therein lies the problem. The ones that kick and scream the loudest are the ones that think they are hard done by only because they are female. It's pure one-eyed speculation. There are dozens of other reasons why a person won't get a job or a promotion etc.

[Galenbo]

No there aren't any real barriers.
If a women wants to get into in engineering today, she can, easily. No shortage of successful women, and female role models etc if they want those.

I think they (average) are not interested, not in electronics, not in preparing race cars, not in plumbing, not in breaking speed records.
Just like men (average) are not interested in dancing, fashion and barbie.

The few females that entered engineering with me (<10%) nearly all chose chemistry/bio and not electronics, not electomechanics.
And the veryvery few that indeed did electronics or electromechanics, ended up in a marketing, pure-sales or Human resources.
 
It is proven in the sixties that you can't change someone's gender at birth, and raise him in the new gender.
There is very much connected to the gender awareness, the ones who say no often have a political agenda or earn their money in that field.

I support groups that encourage girls to get into engineering/STEM etc, that's great.

I don't (in my country/area)
Everything they produce are sponsored childish video's, with false data. Geeky stuff, a real humiliation to the STEM field.
Encouraging the wrong people to start, they often give up after 2 weeks, or choose another career.

I am personally aware of only 3 women who work in the STEM field as a de-facto engineer. It's not them who complain about being discriminated.
It's not them complaining about wage gap. I never expierienced a difference in working with them, because they are female.
They also completely didn't have an outspoken lesbian, feminist behavour or look.
No material for the media or TV.

[Galenbo]

It seems to me likely that there are probably some smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a female engineer, no matter how qualified.

As in the other company that engages a female engineer only because she is a women. She passed the minimum requirement, there were mathematically better candidates but they like some diversity to make the group somewhat more dynamic, or need her for better contact with some customers.

The hard part if you're a woman  who doesn't get the job, is knowing which it is. The smart ones will not waste time worrying about that though and just move on.

Often discrimination is used to cover up personal failure. I feel discriminated because I'm not 1m85 tall. Could have got other jobs, could have earned more.

[Corporate666]

Sure, just like there are smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a *insert anything on the list I have posted*
And this is want I am getting at, sure gender discrimination happens, but so does discrimination for countless other things. Gender issues get to take a number like every other issue.

I know a lot of men who would preferentially hire a woman, especially for an engineering-type job.  Engineers tend to be nerds and I think for as many as would dislike having a woman around there are as many who would love to work with more women.  Not to mention sales where a pretty woman would have a much easier time getting hired, but a fat old ugly guy?  Not a chance. 

Bingo, and therein lies the problem. The ones that kick and scream the loudest are the ones that think they are hard done by only because they are female. It's pure one-eyed speculation. There are dozens of other reasons why a person won't get a job or a promotion etc.

Not to mention... where is the line drawn?  Is it OK to preferentially hire women for customer service roles because they tend to be more patient and calming to customers?  Or to preferentially hire young people to work in a team of young people (or older people to work in a team of older people) because you feel they will fit in better? 

And your point about people that see what they want to see is illustrated perfectly by the fact that mojo was previously praising the idea of a meritocracy... yet people whose merits include negotiating skills shouldn't benefit from that merit compared to those who don't have it.

Storm in a teacup is the right description indeed.

[dannyf]

We have, fortunately, moved beyond most overt sexism now in many places,

Not really - just look at those people who advocate hiring more on the basis of gender. People like you are openly sexist.

[Zero999]

I welcome this move, as a guy who hates negotiating salary. I prefer that the company makes a reasonable offer up front, instead of going in with a low number in the expectation that you will argue for more. Show me some respect. I'm an engineer, not a negotiator, and if you are going to make every negotiation and pay rise a pain in the arse it isn't going to be a nice atmosphere. The other problem with negotiation is that it encourages negative behaviour, like people offering to do ridiculous amounts of overtime or not see their kids. I don't want it to be a race to the bottom.

More over, there are many, many studies that show negotiation favours males. It's due unconscious. Men who negotiate hard are strong, motivated and ambitious. Women who negotiate hard are bossy, high maintenance, bitchy. Of course most people don't state that outright, but it's like the old identical male/female CV test - even when people aren't aware of it, the bias is there. It will go away with time, but needs a bit of a push until we get there.

Getting rid of negotiations and just making a fair offer seems like a much better way to hire good staff. They will have an idea of what the job is worth to them, and if it isn't enough for a particular candidate better that the find out now than when the first review comes up and their boss does everything he can to pan them and avoid giving a raise.

Where are those studies? Are they independent or were they carried about by feminists?

What if being able to negotiate is part of the job? Has it ever occurred to you, being expected to negotiate ones salary might be a test and those who don't, may not be offered the role at all?

It seems to me likely that there are probably some smaller engineering firms out there run by males who would just never hire a female engineer, no matter how qualified. I think it's equally likely that there are many that would (even if they haven't yet).

This is what microaggressions are about. Even at places where the hiring staff are consciously unbiased there is very often still a measurable bias when doing hiring experiments (the old identical CVs trick etc.) We have, fortunately, moved beyond most overt sexism now in many places, but the problem hasn't been completely fixed by a long stretch.

I agree with you that some discrimination is unconscious and people should be aware of their potential biases.

On the other hand because of past discrimination, there is a victim culture in some minority groups which is not beneficial. If a group of people are continuously being told, by society, they're being oppressed (due to their gender, sexual orientation, race etc.)  then it's no surprise if they unconsciously perceive discrimination (sexism, homophobia, racism etc.) whether it exists or not.

I remember when I was at school and there was an Indian boy (one of many) but he would make accusations of racism, more often than others did, normally because he couldn't get his own way. One day, he had an argument with another boy and he accused him of not liking him because he was Asian. The other boy said "No, I don't like you because you're a dickhead and no one else likes you either!" He went to tell the teacher who had overheard the whole argument and said the other boy was right, he needed to let his barriers down and not be so aggressive, for others to like him.

It's fair enough telling people that sexism, homophobia and racism is unacceptable but it's also good to encourage them to try to see the best of others and not take offence too easily.

[Zero999]

Where are those studies? Are they independent or were they carried about by feminists?

Well, here's one by a linguist: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/

Maybe that person is a feminist as well, I don't know. It doesn't matter, your question is just an ad-hominem attack. You should address the content of the study directly.

Why did you take my question as an ad-hominem attack?

It's a perfectly genuine question: whenever a study is raised, it's important to ascertain if there is any bias. For example, I'm sure one would be very dubious of a study on how a renewable energy source which as wind power is not economical if it were commissioned by an oil company. The same is true here.

[dannyf]

Well, here's one by a linguist: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias/

For someone who insists that others read his links, you should probably take that medicine of yours and read and more importantly understand the articles you are trying to cite in support of your point. Just reading the headline instead of the full article is too juvenile.

In case you cannot comprehend it, the article said that men and women received different feedbacks (but don't give different feedbacks). That, by itself, probably doesn't suggest a bias - the homework is on you as to why.

your question is just an ad-hominem attack. You should address the content of the study directly.

For someone who dishes out most of the personal attacks here, you seem to have a real hard time taking what you give.

Two suggestions:

1. if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen;
2. man up (no, it doesn't mean what a sexist would think it means).

[Zero999]

I agree, it is important to look for bias. However, merely attacking the source of a study is a pure ad-hominem. Looking for bias means looking at the actual study and finding flaws in it. At best you could argue that flaws you find are evidence that feminists (if she is one) are often biased, but the logic doesn't work the other way. Instead of arguing about this, why not read and argue about the study?

Consider this. I suffer from Reiter's Syndrome. Hans Reiter was an awful person, doing experiments for the Nazis and other nasty stuff. However, he was the first to diagnose my condition and did some genuinely useful and insightful work on it. I could ad-hominem him and reject all his work, but the simple fact is that the origin of the science being unpalatable doesn't invalidate it.

I asked that question before you posted that link so I don't see how that's the same. If you'd posted it elsewhere in the thread, I'd obviously missed it - this thread is so long!

I did find the article interesting, even though it was not a scientific study. The fact that the gender of the manager didn't make any difference was also interesting.

The last bit was most illuminating:

I only have the data I have. I don’t know whether women were simply more willing to submit reviews that include critical language, or whether men removed language from their review documents before submitting.

[timb]

Anyone know if Reiter's Syndrome is fatal? I'm asking, uh, for a friend...


Sent from my Tablet

[Zero999]

Look it up on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_arthritis#Prognosis

It sounds nasty. Yes the Nazis did some very important work, even though the methods used were inhumane but that doesn't indicate any bias. Perhaps if they did in experiment which suggested a certain race were inferior, then yes that would be fair to claim bias (same for a someone performing a study, showing how they're being discriminated against) but this isn't the case for here, regardless of how horrific the methods used were.

[Zero999]

Another thing to note about that study is regardless of the negative comments, they were still employed and promoted, probably quite often in preference to their male colleagues.

Obviously for some jobs negotiating skills are important. Look, no-one is suggesting being silly here. It's like existing discrimination laws - you can require a certain gender if you have a good reason, e.g. you need an actor for a female part or a male for a particular care role. There simply has to be some justification.

In this case Reddit is hiring developers. Negotiating skills are not required for the job. To be honest, even if they were a hiring a negotiator, I don't think seeing what wage they can negotiate would be a good test anyway.

No ones talking about gender discrimination here. Negotiation skills are important for a variety of jobs, even if it isn't the primary role. Quite often an engineer will need to negotiate timescales and cost with suppliers, customers and their managers. It's a good life skill to have, so it wouldn't be surprising if it's tested by some employers when selecting candidates

[Tallie]

Well, this has reached a new low 

Let this thread die already...

[dannyf]

NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.
If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.
An optional additional explanation is:

[Galenbo]

Consider this. I suffer from Reiter's Syndrome. Hans Reiter was an awful person, doing experiments for the Nazis and other nasty stuff. However, he was the first to diagnose my condition and did some genuinely useful and insightful work on it. I could ad-hominem him and reject all his work, but the simple fact is that the origin of the science being unpalatable doesn't invalidate it.

What's wrong with having worked for the nazis? (I think we reach Godwin's law here)

Only a very small amount of them really knew what was going on, and for the ones who like to count,
they were pussies compared to multiple other regimes when counting the people that regime murdered.

[EEVblog]

Please stay on topic people.

[nctnico]

Consider this. I suffer from Reiter's Syndrome. Hans Reiter was an awful person, doing experiments for the Nazis and other nasty stuff. However, he was the first to diagnose my condition and did some genuinely useful and insightful work on it. I could ad-hominem him and reject all his work, but the simple fact is that the origin of the science being unpalatable doesn't invalidate it.

What's wrong with having worked for the nazis? (I think we reach Godwin's law here)

A lot... but then again... medicines have improved a lot since WWII. Large German pharmaceutical companies like Bayer (which still exists) have been involved in experimenting on people as well. And some of the Japanese doctors involved in truly horrific experimenting ended up high in the ranks of major Japanese pharmaceutical companies after the war. Sickening but true.

[EEVblog]

I'll say it one more time, please stay on topic or this thread gets locked.

[zapta]

I'll say it one more time, please stay on topic or this thread gets locked.

NP, we can move the Nazi discussion to another thread. Luckily it goes well with any topic.

;-)