[onion2k]

People who immediately shout about something being unfair when they're the ones who aren't benefitting but don't say anything at all when they do really bugs me. It's just plain selfishness.

Fortunately I'm sure the people commenting here stand up to all discrimination and not just the things affect them.

[belorn]

The next time someone ask me if I identify as male and after I answer yes and I get a free entry, I will remember this post and call out the explicit discrimination for what it is.

[repolfx]

When do men unfairly benefit from things in the tech industry? Can you show something specific, that isn't a strong assumption of invisible discrimination on the basis of statistically differing outcomes?

Cuz I don't recall encountering any "men in tech" events, or investment funds that invest only in men, or efforts to encourage white boys to study computers.

[ianleeclark]

There aren't explicit posters on the wall pushing young white men into studying comp sci, but there are historical and sociological reasons for why they're over-represented.

> When do men unfairly benefit from things in the tech industry?

There's a systemic problem which benefits men over women, regardless of which industry. For example, men have a more positive sentiment for the same resume than women do: https://www.aauw.org/2015/06/11/john-or-jennifer/

Moreover, this sentiment might extend to women, as well, as reportedly 69% of women ask for less than their male counterpart for the same role https://hired.com/wage-inequality-report

> investment funds that invest only in men

I'd be surprised if most investment funds didn't invest in women, but this is a very surface-level view. You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments, such as: connections made through school, fraternities, or other networking phenomena; and men have a greater perceived ability (see the resume discrimination above).

> efforts to encourage white boys to study computers

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...

> Can you show something specific, that isn't a strong assumption of invisible discrimination on the basis of statistically differing outcomes?

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

[repolfx]

there are historical and sociological reasons for why they're over-represented.

This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?

You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments

But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.

Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.

[ianleeclark]

You're asking for a hard-science demonstration of a soft-science problem and this is causing you to refuse understanding a deeply rooted systemic problem if it can't be immediately displayed.

Ahh, your post history is illuminating and an interesting walk through the reactionary mind:

> Historically speaking fascists were hard left

> You know what Nazi stands for, don't you?

> Implying someone is racist when they've not said anything racist is unacceptable ad-hominem.

I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation.

[repolfx]

Your post is heavily downvoted because you are simply engaging in ad-hominem - presumably you ran out of arguments and know you can't win this one?

There is no such thing as a "soft science problem" for which "hard-science demonstrations" are invalid. That's a separation you've made up on the spot.

What I'm asking for isn't even science, I'm not even asking for data. I'm asking for anecdotes! That should be easy! Just show a bunch of cases of companies explicitly refusing to hire women or refusing to promote women because of their gender. You don't even have to show that amounts to the entire cause of the disparity. That's an absurdly low bar.

[yifanl]

I'm going to reframe those questions.

Why are there no "men in tech" events? Why are no efforts made to encourage white guys to study compsci?

After all, if there's a genuine need for them, I would strongly expect them to exist.

[repolfx]

Because men in software don't agitate for them in the same way (some) women do.

But in other fields sometimes such events are organised, to encourage men into female-dominated jobs. Guess who comes out of the woodwork to attack them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne...

The University of Sydney is under fire for a new scholarship of nearly $30,000 that gives preference to male applicants, with the head of the scholarships office likening it to grants that “discriminate” against students who are not Aboriginal.

...

“The way I think about it, affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education – that’s what the exemption in discrimination law is about, so you can procure particular benefits for women in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics], Aboriginal students and so on,” Grant said. “It’s not for further advantaging men. It’s really quite bizarre.”

[leereeves]

I get your point but there's a strong bias against any program target at specifically helping men.

For example, there are few events targeted at recruiting more boys to college, even though only 40% of college students are male; and few programs specifically targeted at helping homeless men even though most homeless people are adult men.

Contrast that to the PR value of program like this that's targeted at helping women.

[anon12345690]

theres no genuine need for any specific group because there is already plenty of competition

some people and groups just want special treatment

[onion2k]

Asking for explicit examples of an implicit bias is stupid.

[repolfx]

It's the opposite of stupid - asking for explicit evidence is the only way to test whether this so-called "implicit bias" actually exists or is merely a conspiracy theory.

[anon12345690]

how do you know there is bias without evidence? saying the numbers arent what you like is not evidence

[bufferoverflow]

Do you see many male-only offers and programs? I do not see any. But I see many female-only, regularly posted on HN.

[djohnston]

that's human nature. we're selfish.

[onion2k]

That's an convenient excuse to not try harder.