[rfnslyr]

But that doesn’t give us free reign to ignore the problems that exist in universities, accelerators, tech companies and venture capital. These pieces of the funnel need to be thoroughly analyzed and optimized for inclusion - be it for gender, race, age, or other markers, so that we’re able to produce the best sustainable and profitable companies and organizations possible.

Why?

3. ‘Not discouraging’ women isn’t enough - actively encourage them.

Again, why?

I don't understand this "get women in X" movement. There are women everywhere, women are doing fine from what I can see in the tech space.

Why must I go out of my way to specifically pave a way for women in everything I do?

Why not blacks? Why not midgets? Why not "X deviation from being a while male?"

Read my previous comment history for my stance as I'm not going to copy paste everything here. I honestly don't get it. You have all the same opportunities men do, at least in this space.

Women are so entitled nowadays.

[raganwald]

Just so you know, your tone is extremely off-putting. It doesn't come across as genuine asking the question, but are instead whining about how you are being forced to change and you don't want to change and don't see why you should budge so much as a single hair on your head.

Also the "Why not blacks? Why not midgets?" line is a particularly poor choice. My understanding is that little people do not like being called midgets, and by slurring them in the same breath that you speak of women and blacks, you give the impression that women, blacks, and midgets are all categories of people you disrespect.

Finally, entitlement refers to the sense that you deserve what you have, not the feeling that you deserve something you ought to have but don't have.

Therefore, ironically, YOU are the entitled one here. You feel you're entitled to carry on as you have been carrying on.

[rfnslyr]

Therefore, ironically, YOU are the entitled one here. You feel you're entitled to carry on as you have been carrying on.

By not paying extra attention to females?

Buddy, I'm here to get a job done, if my applicant is a woman and she is good, I will hire her. Move on with your bullshit.

[raganwald]

I said noting about what you should or shouldn't do, but I did point out that your tone was combative. And your reply is that I have bullshit. Well, that really speaks for itself: You're a fair-minded, egalitarian, meritocratic, open- minded fellow until called on the toxicity of your tone. Then you become fully abusive.

Tell me why anyone should expect that you are this way when discussing gender, colour, and stature, but miraculously transform into an open-minded and welcoming person when discussing technical ideas?

I'm open to discovering new things, but my bet is that you're rude and bullying about everything, not just this topic.

One upon a time businesspeople would drink together, because alcohol would lower inhibitions so it would strip away the false friendliness and you could discover what people were really like.

Now we have the internet, and no alcohol is needed for people to drop the pretence of civility.

[ionforce]

It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I happen to agree. But I think the volatility of this issue makes it difficult to discuss accurately.

"You have all the same opportunities men do, at least in this space."

I also agree with you. But I'm open to being proven wrong. And I think that's the sticking point here. Some audiences (male or female, doesn't matter) believe that women do not have the same opportunities as men.

In my experience, technology is one of the most meritocratic fields. With or without an education, come in with working code and you have a job. Now, if you're going to move goal posts and say, "well the more well off have more opportunities to write code", that is a different, much more complicated discussion. But as for the primary metric here, raw performance, working code, a running portfolio, I don't see how it is a function of genitalia or gender expression.

In other aspects of life I'm a triple minority. And yet here I am, a working engineer. Where are my handouts? Where are my support groups? Where is my encouragement?

So yeah, I totally agree with you.

"Women are so entitled nowadays."

I wouldn't say that. I would say the people making the most noise are entitled. Everyone else is too busy doing actual work.

(Am I calling social justice not real work? Of course not. It's just ... it feels misguided/trolly at times, when it isn't presented in a rational manner.)

[CJefferson]

After finishing with a statement so women-hating and/or trolling as "Women are so entitled nowadays.", there really can't be a sensible discussion. Downvoting is, I believe, the only reasonable option.

[rfnslyr]

After finishing with a statement so women-hating and/or trolling as "Women are so entitled nowadays.", there really can't be a sensible discussion.

Check your sensitivity. That's how I feel from my own experience dealing with women. A lot of them feel that they are being crushed by men with no real world example, it's a large modern bandwagon. Modern day pseudo-feminism, that is.

[CJefferson]

If you have decided to put 50% of the population into a single box, I find that to simplistic.

Would you accept a similarly general negative statement about men? All men are lazy? All men put women down? Or would you consider any such statement too generalising?

[rfnslyr]

Really depends on the context. I'm speaking in the "women are so actively discriminated against that there are no women in tech when really just a lot of women are not interested in CS" context.

[nsp]

Technical jobs are 90%+ male, but our customer base is generally much closer to 50/50. Don't you think it's pretty plausible that having a woman working with you might add a useful perspective when making your product? I've worked at 3 startups(2 as a dev) and interviewed a couple hundred programmers over that time, and don't think I've yet even had a resume from a female programmer, and honestly that really disappoints me - I'd love to work in a coed environment, just to get more opinions and life experiences informing our discussions.

From a purely selfish standpoint, theres a lot of money to be made and a lot less competition in female-customer-oriented startup spaces - take the phenomenal success of Pinterest for an easy example - unless you're only building for yourself, why would you be opposed to adding a perspective that could potentially double your market size.

*I'm personally bothered by the gender gap for a plethora of reasons that go far beyond purely economic, but women control something like 70% of household spending in the USA, and there's a lot of compelling opportunities there even leaving aside any larger equitable society issues.

[ionforce]

So you're conflating your technical groups with your product groups? And you're saying that your product is a function of gender?

[rfnslyr]

I understand you and I fully agree. I actually work with a majority of women. I'm in the corporate sector, and there are more women then men from what I'm seeing.

I still don't get the movement. Everyone knows Computer Science exists. It's just not an interesting or attractive field for everyone. Let's be honest, when you have prospective high school grads you can't make CS more interesting than say, Physics, Bio, Chemistry. A majority of women flock to those fields and humanities. It's not sexism, it's not the patriarchy, it's just statistics.

It just seems like a lot of women just aren't interested in CS, and I get that. It's a fascinating field, but I can totally see why it's not populated with women.

Anyways, all I'm trying to say is when it comes down to it, and I see a good female candidate, I will hire her. I really don't care about the gender, just I get way fewer females candidates. It is what it is.

Why not host more women friendly CS/Info tech workshops to spread interest?

These kinds of blog posts are just hot wind without any real foundation. Affirmative action isn't the way to go about it, spreading interest in the field at an early stage, however, is.

Example: CS classes in high school don't hold a candle to the sciences and are very very poorly taught for the most part. Other sciences are exciting, they out number CS classes like 20 to 1.

[kbambz]

Actually, I didn't know what "computer science" was until mid-high school, and I was extremely lucky to have attended one that happened to offer a few extracurricular CS classes (I'd toyed around with HTML and CSS and built a few Geocities sites when I was around 11, but that's certainly not what I'd consider "exposure to CS"). But I don't think that's an issue of gender so much as a failure of the education system to integrate topics of CS into standard curricula.

The "problem" is the girl with straight As in my high school BC calculus class who refused to take CS because "that's hard, I wouldn't be good at it" (true story, and it confused the hell out of me when she said it). The fact of the matter is people AREN'T just "not interested". I really wouldn't care if only 0.2% of the tech industry was female or <insert-label-here>, so long as it's because they either aren't capable or interested. But I don't buy that. We've come a long, long, long way, but we're not there yet. And all the screaming and finger-pointing, such as that which PG has received (misquoted or not), just distracts from addressing what actually matters.

P.S. We actually explicitly argued AGAINST affirmative action in the post. I could go on about that for ages, but I'll just say this: I want to be held to the same standards as any other demographic, be it race, sex, or shirt color, and I don't want to have to question the legitimacy of my failures OR successes. If I thought I'd been given a handout because I have two X chromosomes, I'd be pissed.

[Crito]

I believe the basic premise is that there is nothing in biology that makes computer science more interesting to men than it does to women.

Since it is not an imbalance that can be pinned on biology (perhaps unlike an imbalance in world weightlifting records?), the cause of the imbalance must be somehow 'nurture' related. Even if we do not consider the imbalance itself to be problematic, the imbalance is considered to be the result of some sort of bias that is assumed to be problematic.

For example, fewer women in tech may not be considered problematic in and of itself (though I believe many people think that it is), but the existence of this imbalance may be evidence of systematic sexual harassment, which certainly is problematic.

I might be getting this wrong, so I welcome corrections.

[rfnslyr]

Well, here's my take on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6977753

Most of the men I know and have talked to specifically about fighting for pay, have in fact put up a fight for their pay, while the women I worked with believed that their work will pay for itself and have no fought for a higher pay raise. The women that are top tier managers, were actually just as vicious as the guys, and by being this way, have attained the same things.

People are so quick to hop on to the social justice brigade when in reality its a much more complicated and personal issue, being lumped into the gender category.

[jacalata]

Have you ever read the research available on the different reactions people tend to have when a woman asks for higher pay/displays entitlement to better conditions in general, vs when a man does?

[Crito]

I don't really disagree. I guess my comment is more addressing the "less women than men in the industry" thing, and not the "women negotiate lower salaries than men" thing.

[baddox]

I follow some prominent feminists in technology, initially out of genuine interest but increasingly out of morbid curiosity, so I think I can respond with my honest impression of their beliefs.

The reason we need to actively encourage women (more so than men) to get into tech is that the tech industry is believed to be fundamentally and structurally sexist. So, for the same reason that victims of violence need special and deliberate treatment, the victims of the structural misogyny need special and deliberate treatment.

This isn't just for getting female children interested in technology, it is even the case for female entrepreneurs seeking funding. Regarding the low percentage of VC funds going to female entrepreneurs, a prominent tech feminist recently said that the percentage of female applicants is irrelevant, and that the men who run the industry should be seeking out and finding female entrepreneurs. https://mobile.twitter.com/shanley/status/417035978025357312... https://mobile.twitter.com/shanley/status/417036172448104448...

Interestingly, tech feminism seems to even support the idea that female entrepreneurs should not apply for VC funding, because it is so misogynistic. https://mobile.twitter.com/CynthiaSchames/status/41703807634...

[char]

> I honestly don't get it. You have all the same opportunities men do, at least in this space.

No. Just no. It's true that we have the same opportunities to TRY (i.e., submit resumes, build what we wish, etc.), but not to actually be IN the space. Have you ever been interviewed and had a male interviewer walk into the room, take one look at you, and immediately change his body language and adopt a condescending tone? Had it happen more than once in a 2 week period? I have. Let me tell you how fun that was. I hadn't even opened my mouth yet.

This is just one example of how entry for women can be a challenge. Clearly not everyone looks at women so blatantly with discomfort, but the fact that it even happens to a noticeable extent is enough to posit that there are completely disparate opportunities for men and women in tech.

There are so many more non-negligible ways women have more of a challenge to enter the tech world, but I wanted to quickly illustrate one example to bring attention to the utter fallacy of your statement.

[GammaDelta]

If a particular group is underrepresented there is a reason for that. It's not necessarily your fault, although unless you're very aware of ingrained sexist structures it's possible that you're contributing accidentally. It turns out that the reasons for the imbalance aren't good ones. It's not that women just love to do other things - there are pressures that actively dissuade them from pursuing technical careers. Most of this has happened long before they acquire technical qualifications and are applying for jobs. That IS sexism in our society, and it's not fair.

So where does that leave us white males working in tech?

1. We have to recognise that the gender imbalance is a problem and accept that it should be solved

2. We have to recognise there are ways we can help that are NOT simply "hire a weaker female applicant just to balance the genders"

3. Promote female participation! Sponsor school programs. Create female-only internships. Make sure that everybody in your workplace is actively educated about structural sexism so that things are as comfortable as possible for your female employees. Ensure salaries are equal.

We need to help send the signal to young women contemplating their careers that the tech industry welcomes them. Then, maybe 5 or 10 years from now, we'll be getting closer to equal applicants.

[andrewliebchen]

You said:

> Women are so entitled nowadays.

I don't know if you're just incredibly tone deaf, callous to what your words mean, or are trying to be funny.

If you think that women have equal ability to men (by your comment, maybe you don't), and you think that people should hold jobs equal to their abilities, then you should wonder why 50% of your colleagues aren't women...

[hhw]

Why should 50:50 be the desired ratio? Are you proposing that every industry which isn't at or near that ratio rife with gender discrimination? Do you also believe there is significant sexual discrimination against men in every industry dominated by women? Have you even considered the possibility that men and women are just interested in different things, simply due to natural proclivities, and not because one gender is actively discouraged? Note that I'm not suggesting that there isn't any discrimination in CS, but simply that there is no reason to believe that 50:50 should be the ideal ratio in this, or any other field, be it currently male or female dominated, unless there's research to support that men and women are both equally interested in that discipline.

[andrewliebchen]

50:50 is the ideal ratio if you think that there is no biological reason that men would be better at anything than women (as I do). The key point is interest. Why would women be less interested in CS?

[rfnslyr]

I manage a top tier development team at the worlds largest bank. I go through 100's of resumes.

The percentage of women applying for pure CS related jobs (not business jobs, but specifically tech) is very little.

It's not my problem that a small part of the resumes I get are women. It's not sexism. It's just statistics.

I work a majority of women actually, they out number us very very hard.

I've yet to find a substantial argument for the men against women in tech movement. Did someone yell into your face "get out of my office you fucking WHORE", or is there some VC that subscribes purely to "I ONLY EVER HIRE MEN". Is there some CEO that raped his co workers?

All I'm seeing is a few nancies getting offended at:

a) they didn't get hired likely because they were not good enough, not because they are women

b) women that feel they are entitled to get offended at any little off putting remark/joke/jab.

Downvote me, I really don't care.

[jacalata]

Nancies? You know that typically refers to gay men, right?

edit: gay or effeminate, as a slur.

[sergiotapia]

It's just a fad in the US.

[DanBC]

> Why not blacks? Why not midgets?

Yes, those people too.

> Women are so entitled nowadays.

GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.

[rfnslyr]

> GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.

From personal experience, a little anecdote:

When I was first hired as a junior developer, I was offered 40k. Me, along with a few women, and a few junior guys.

Now, is it sexism that:

a) I demanded hire pay and was in pay negotiation for 2 months before I was bumped to 60 because I made a compelling case, a long with a few of the guys?

b) That the women who were offered the same position signed off immediately on the agreement?

There is no "we pay women less for the same job" mantra anywhere that matters, and if there is, please point to a concrete example.

It's not my fault that I'm willing to risk a little and fight for higher pay and potential unemployment for doing so.

[DanBC]

> Now, is it sexism that:

Yes, yes it is.

It's freaking weird that HN has this blind spot.

[aredridel]

It is. You have less to lose than the average woman in the same spot.

We get fired, we get DEMOTED when asking for a raise. We have a lot less to negotiate with. So we stop when it's tolerable, because the stakes are different for us. We have to be the absolute top of our game to compete.

[Cabal]

We get fired, we get DEMOTED when asking for a raise.

Citation needed.

[Dewie]

> GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.

Well that straw-manned quickly.