[jonahrd]

What kind of manager treats every single employee the same, regardless of differences in talent, background, needs, etc?

If a manager hires a person who needs a bit more structure in order to stay focused, that person should be given a little more structure. Or in this case, if a manager hires someone who has been pushed down her whole life and has learned to fade into the background so as not to upset men around her, the manager should most definitely spend some time helping her get accustomed to speaking her mind and advocating for herself. It's just good managing.

This way, she'll be able to contribute much more to the team that she would if she was still worried about fitting in. And her knowledge can be spread to new female employees, which helps move the inequality further towards equality in the long run.

I don't see how this "special treatment" is in any way detrimental.

[RIMR]

If they said "Bryana, you're a great speaker and can really hold a crowd. We want you to attend conferences and represent our company. You're really the best at it!", then it would be wonderful. There is no need to treat every employee equally when they clearly have differing skills and strengths.

This isn't what is happening here though.

This comes off much more as "Bryana, you're our only female programmer, and we want to look more progressive and diverse than our competitors. We are sending you to conferences to speak for us so we can show you off as our token female."

It works out in her favor, so she'll never complain, but it is sexism nonetheless. Special treatment doesn't lead to equality. Equal treatment leads to equality.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sure it does. Inequality can be fought with quotas, biased hiring etc. Until the culture starts to change; then you need to change tactics. Are we so rich in diverse developers, that we can stop trying? I don't think so.

[programmernews3]

The irony of the left - they want to treat people differently based on their gender and skin colour.

In the UK, white British make up 40% of medical doctors.

Would you support quotas and biased hiring to increase the number of white British doctors? It would make it more representative of the population.

What about primary school teachers? If 9 females and 1 male go for a job, should the male always get preference?

[JoeAltmaier]

Yes straw men can always be found. But for the other 100 high-paying jobs and industries, there's a lot to be done.

[RIMR]

This isn't a strawman. These are real examples of where white men make up the minority in a field.

If you would support treating women special in fields where they are a minority, while opposing treating men special in fields where they are a minority you clearly have a sexist bias.

This isn't about leveling the playing field for a specific industry, this is about "reversing" the problem by pointing discrimination in the opposite direction that is has pointed historically. This ignores the fact that sexual discrimination is still occurring, and is even being encouraged!

Unless you can answer programmernews3's question or provide sourced statistics about these "100 high-paying jobs and industries", I can't regard your argument as anything other than an appeal to emotion.

[JoeAltmaier]

Well, cherry-picking then. "See, I can come up with one situation that isn't the same as all the rest; thus I refute the general claim" is plain wrong.

Semantic quibbling about 'reverse discrimination' is a standard lame trick used by those in power to justify their continued power. It doesn't fool anybody; its just selfishness.

And really, if you have no idea of the state of employment and the gender gap, what place have you in this discussion at all? Denying the widely published statistics and endemic problems in modern hiring is a species of willful ignorance I find breathtaking.

See, I take care 99 days out of 100 to reply evenhandedly and avoid any reference to others posting here; I try to stick with the topic and illuminate the issue as best I can. But today, I've been driven mad by the sophomoric nonsense.

[RIMR]

Let's be honest. Are Bryana's employers trying to make the workplace more diverse? It doesn't seem so given that they have a 20:1 male:female ratio.

It seems much more likely that they have chosen Bryana to represent them at conferences so that they can APPEAR to be more diverse. She's a token female in a majority-male environment. If they cared about equality, they would participate in programs targeting younger girls to get them more interested in STEM jobs.

The issue isn't in staffing, it's in education. If you want to change the culture of the STEM world, look to the schools, not to the tech conferences...

[JoeAltmaier]

My local Engineering college is 25% women. The education part has begun already, and is picking up steam.

We can do both. No good reason remains to delay corrective pressure in staffing processes.

[RIMR]

So since we're making progress towards sexual equality, your suggestion is to introduce some sexual discrimination to the mix?

Also, your local Engineering college is not representative of the country as a whole. Even if equality of opportunity is picking up steam, that doesn't excuse implementing blatantly sexist policies to try to give women an extra boost...

It's like people think that women are less capable of success by virtue of being women, and need men's help to pull themselves upward. It's asinine and basically infantilizes women...

[new_corp_dev]

Helping people overcome whatever unique problems they face in order to reach their full potential is expected and encouraged. Offering them opportunities solely based on a protected status is not.

I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.

In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.

[RIMR]

>I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.

This is exactly the problem that goes ignored when people argue that "reverse discrimination" isn't a problem. Treating people differently because of their protected status only serves to further divide.

The interest should be on making sure boys and girls get the same opportunities and encouragement growing up. in US universities, we have 30 male STEM majors for every female STEM major. We aren't going to see the industry change until we fix the root problem - that men are 30x more interested in STEM jobs than women.

No amount of Social Justice Theater is going to level the playing field when men are being raised believing they can be whatever they want, and women are raised believing that marrying a wealthy man and becoming a stay-at-home mom is the greatest thing they can do with their lives.

Women are lacking in STEM not because STEM is sexist, but because few women ever consider a future in STEM. Introducing pro-woman sexism into STEM is a paradoxical way to "solve" the problem.

[jonahrd]

And what if there's a young software engineering student who's inspired by this talk and decides to keep studying against her preconceived notions that this is a "field for men"?

Hosting more women speakers at conferences helps to fix the broken stereotype of software engineers all being white dudes, which in turns fixes the problem of fewer women and minorities becoming interested in STEM.

[new_corp_dev]

And what if said young software engineering student reads Bryana's blog post and realizes that Bryana may only have been chosen to speak because she is a woman? What sort of inspiration would that be for other women to join STEM? How should anyone view speakers that have been invited to speak based primarily on their race or gender?

It would set the whole industry back by decades. Not because women got involved, but because they became token minorities instead of competent colleagues. For an entire generation, minority STEM students would face impostor syndrome in themselves, and have to work twice as hard to prove themselves because everyone would assume they got to where they are based on "positive discrimination" instead of merit and ability.

[jonahrd]

But this argument rests on the case that Bryana was solely chosen because she's a women, when in reality she was chosen because she had the qualifications (much like some of her other colleagues) and is also a woman who had to overcome more challenges to make it to where she is now. That's a pretty interesting and under-represented vantage point to hear a speech from.

This all relates to the same debate about affirmative action that's been happening since the 60's. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/5/19/bernard-davis-an... This guy (happens to be my grandfather) argued essentially the same point as you: that black students would be accepted to the medical school based on a lowered standard, and end up graduating as less qualified doctors as their white counterparts. This in turn would lead people to have a general mistrust of black doctors, because they would be seen as only being in their place through affirmative action, and not through merit. That is definitely a scenario to avoid, and also definitely one worth considering in debate.

However, this has proven not to be the case, and Harvard is still viewed as ranking among the greatest institutions in the world, even though they have been admitting minorities to their program since the 70's! In fact, here is a more recent Crimson article highlighting some points in defense of promoting people in minority groups: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/11/7/affirmative-acti...

If we want to decrease the gender inequality in STEM, we need to take concrete action and promote the hard work of women and other underrepresented groups in order to slowly shift the male-dominated culture to one that's more diverse.

[Lawtonfogle]

It is weird that discrimination is a four letter word when it is absurd to try to treat everyone equally.

But... either we can discriminate based on gender or we can't. If you have an all male team where most members are extremely shy around women (like bad enough they probably should see a therapist), then it would make perfect business sense to only seek another man for that team. But discrimination based on gender isn't allowed, so you can't do that. And for the same reason, even though there is business reason why special treatment is justified, you can't discriminate based on gender.

[RIMR]

"discrimination" is a very vague word. Technically all employers practice some kind of discrimination. Applying for a job is an exercise in getting discriminated against (typically for your skills, education and experience).

The key here is that discrimination against someone for their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. is unethical, no matter what kind of social wrong you aim to right.

Giving women more opportunities may seem like it's progressive. I mean, "we're helping women"! But it still contributes to defining people based on their gender, rather than their skills and abilities.

I worked at a company a few years ago that would ONLY hire women to work at the front desk. This was a deliberate move to make the office look more diverse than it actually was, because most of our male employees worked outside of the view of our visitors.

That, and the CEO openly admitted that he enjoyed "seeing a pretty face every time he came to work".

How do you separate my blatantly sexist employer's hiring of women for visibility from social-justice oriented businesses doing the same thing to "further women"?

[chillacy]

I think a lot of disagreement in this thread can be boiled down to Equality vs Justice: http://imgur.com/RD6NDfK

I'm not sure which is the right one to aim for, and it affects not only the women in engineering debate but also things like affirmative action. There are certainly good arguments for both sides.

[JoeAltmaier]

Straw man? Nobody would of course. We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men. Anything less tends to be discrimination, and unethical, right?

[RIMR]

You seriously need to learn the difference between constructive contrasting, and fallacious straw-man arguments.

I am telling a true story about an actual boss I had who was using "positive discrimination" in a dubious way. This wasn't some fabricated argument meant to replace yours. I'm contrasting two similar actions, one of which you defend, while the other you condemn - yet you can't articulate why.

>We want to see women with skills and abilities hired in the same ratio as men.

Well, if an employer gets 30 male applicants for every female applicant, then by your standard they are now obligated to mass-discriminate against fully-qualified men for no other reason than their gender, while suffering a lack of staffing while they try to find as many technically-qualified women to fill their ranks.

This problem runs much deeper than sexual discrimination by hiring managers (which is actually quite rare). You're trying to put a band-aid on a nonexistent wound.

[JoeAltmaier]

Ok, thank you for the perfect straw man, right there in glorious living color. If an employer gets 30 male applicants for every female, then I suppose that fictitious situation would justify discrimination against women.

But there's no reason to assume that is the case. The evidence, in fact, is that women do apply for jobs and are not hired. Blind trials of anonymous resumes show that women would be hired, if only the reader didn't know they were women. That once hired, with nearly identical job histories for men and women, men are complimented for leadership qualities and promoted, while women are criticized for being bossy and demanding, and denied raises and promotion.

Willfully ignoring these well-documented issues is not the same thing as debating. Coming up with one anecdotal case (that 'constructive contrasting') and concluding that nothing should be done because there is no problem, is pretty much classic strawman argument.