[spcoll]

The issues of diversity and equality are becoming increasingly harder to ignore for tech companies of all sizes. This is a great reminder to Facebook (and others watching) that they should care.

It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM. And no woman will be afraid to go and do her job.

We're still so far from this dream...

[beachstartup]

> It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM. And no woman will be afraid to go and do her job.

okay, i'll jump on this grenade.

will there one day also be one male nurse for every female nurse? one male elementary school teacher for one female elementary school teacher? or one male social worker for every female one? receptionist? hair stylist?

how about one female oil rig roughneck for every male roughneck? one female coal miner for every male? how about plumber, or roofer, or underwater welder? and garbage truck drivers?

what about the female civil engineers? structural engineers? physical plant engineers? construction foremen? these people build things too, arguably things even more real-er than stupid smartphone apps.

it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work for nerds who didn't fit in anywhere else, i didn't see much if any hullaballoo over the lack of females in these roles. now that all of a sudden everyone including celebrities spends their entire day glued to the internet like a bad crack habit and people are getting rich off ones and zeroes, it's all of a sudden a real big deal and really super duper important. like i said, funny.

[emodendroket]

> it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work for nerds who didn't fit in anywhere else, i didn't see much if any hullaballoo over the lack of females in these roles. now that all of a sudden everyone including celebrities spends their entire day glued to the internet like a bad crack habit and people are getting rich off ones and zeroes, it's all of a sudden a real big deal and really super duper important. like i said, funny.

I think you're lacking a bit of perspective here. At first, when it was considered routine, rote work, it was mostly women who were programmers (you can find contemporaneous articles saying it's appropriate work for women because programming is basically like preparing a dinner). It was only as companies started to realize the importance and difficulty of the work that women were largely driven out.

[exstudent2]

Women were not "driven out". The job requirements changed. What you're referring to as programming was more what we would call data entry now.

[DanBC]

When she does it it's data entry; when he does it it's programming?

The blatant unrepentant sexism in this thread, not just you but a bunch of other people, is disturbing.

[exstudent2]

No, the male programmers back then were doing data entry too. It mainly has to do with the transition from punch cards to digital storage. A "programmer" was someone who entered a program or data into a computer. The definition of the role changed as computers did.

[rosser]

it's funny, back when programming computers and managing tech projects was (perceived as) low status work

You do realize that back when being a "computer" (look up the original definition) and programmer were low-status jobs, they were primarily held by women, don't you?

[exstudent2]

They were low status jobs because they were data entry positions. I mention this elsewhere in the thread but the definition of "programmer" changed over time from someone who enters the program into a computer (initially through punch cards) to someone who designs the actual software the computer runs.

[beachstartup]

you're not getting my point - it doesn't matter what they were called, it was a low status job. that's why nobody cared whether they came or went.

back in the day, women only had low status jobs. that's the point. they were secretaries, assistants, computer programmers, etc. now they're PR executives, bankers, lawyers, etc. the times changed, not the job.

[DanBC]

> will there one day also be one male nurse for every female nurse? one male elementary school teacher for one female elementary school teacher? or one male social worker for every female one? receptionist? hair stylist?

Sexists say this every time the subject comes up on HN. There are programmes in each of those industries to reduce the gender imbalance.

[lomegor]

Have you searched for those things? There are lots of campaigns to get more women in those jobs... just google the job title and more women or even feminism.

Example: http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/135815/API_Study_Getti... https://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/article/fancy-commuting-by-heli... http://www.womeninmining.org.uk/

[beachstartup]

those sites aren't talking about the actual mining, and roughnecking. did you even read the copy you linked to?

[DanBC]

I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.

Rigzone:

> Another finding from the studies was that most women will go into white-collar jobs, but there will also be a large number of energy jobs available in blue-collar areas. Several jobs, such as welding, fall into this category, and they offer good salaries, but women typically do not pursue jobs in this area. In part, this could be because there are comparatively few women currently in these areas, so it is difficult for other women to see themselves doing these jobs. WIM

> Created in 2006, WIM (UK) now counts over 1,300 members, from all corners of mining-related businesses and professions.

[TeMPOraL]

Exactly. This is what I also see. We're having the discussion about equality because the field is high-status. No one is asking why waste collectors are mostly men - because most people would like to avoid this line of work when possible.

[lomegor]

http://www.oecd.org/dac/gender-development/1849277.pdf

[civilian]

To add to your list-- let's get gender equality in prison too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1...

//edit flippant attitude aside, there is real discrimination happening here.

> One important result from Table 6 is that females receive even shorter sentences relative to men than whites relative to blacks. The discrimination literature generally argues that females are objects of discrimination and receive worse outcomes. In sentencing, however, women receive better outcomes, consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women,58 studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.59

http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf

And if you have a philosophy of "equal outcomes" not just "equal opportunity", you need to think hard about how equal outcomes would look in all scenarios.

[malvosenior]

I don't think a 1:1 ratio should be a goal. I think "any women that wants to be in tech can do so without any gender discrimination" is much healthier.

Forcing more women into a field that they didn't choose on their own is its own form of discrimination.

I also think we should stop pointing to unresolved harassment claims and using them as fact that there is discrimination in our industry. Anyone can file a claim, proving your case and winning is an entirely different thing.

Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that I'm afraid is getting lost in a lot of this discussion.

[_bfhp]

A 1:1 ratio isn't a "goal", it's how things statistically would be, in any field with a large enough population, when biological sex becomes as socio-economically significant as shoe size. That is with the possible exception of any fields that directly involve biological sex differences, but we don't even have a definite answer that there are any of those.

[thedrbrian]

I can't wait for the when all of the shitty professions are 1:1 too. Wonder if I can get a free ride into the nursing profession.

[weberc2]

+1

[jack-r-abbit]

Take a minute to imagine if this 1:1 ratio "dream" comes true...

Sally Programmer is working for Company X. One day, she gets an offer from Company Y. So she quits her job at Company X. What does Company X do? They start a search for a new programmer, of course. Oh... but they need to maintain their 1:1 quota... so for this round, only female applicants will be screened. Joe Coder sends in his resume. Sorry, Joe... they're only hiring women today.

Congratulations, you just traded one discrimination for another. And this new discrimination cuts both ways. Next time, after Bob Builder quits, Company X would not be screening female applicants. (Imagine how the world would lose their shit right now if a company posted an ad: "Wanted ~ Programmer (males only please)".

Edit: Oh snap! We forgot to mention, Sally is also Indian. There is a racial quota too. So Company X needs to hire an Indian woman.

Edit 2: Well, isn't this embarrassing... turns out Sally is also gay. Company X needs to hire a gay Indian woman to maintain that ratio too.

Edit 3: Son of a ... We were just informed that Sally also suffered from Spina Bifida. Company X says "screw it!" and decides to just pay the fine and hire the most qualified person because that makes more sense than trying to find another gay, handicapped Indian woman to replace Sally.

[vdaniuk]

Disclaimer: I'm all for bringing as many women as possible on board the tech industry ship for their fun and profit. I fully support improving job conditions of anyone in tech industry who may be treated unfairly and empowering groups that are currently at disadvantage.

But.

>one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer >We're still so far from this dream...

There are billions of women who live on less than $5 per day. There are hundreds of thousands, even millions of curious, intlelligent, inquisitve girls who won't have even a miniscule chance to become a modern Ada Lovelace because of poverty, abuse, preventable illnesses, lack of education, early pregnancies and exploitation. But somehow I am not seeing nearly as many posts and comments full with righteous indignation about that on HN.

I wish there would be a community dedicated to programming, tech entrepreneurship and social good for like-minded people from developing countries. No first world problems allowed.

[gopher2]

This could be better phrased, but it seems to me:

Working to achieve a 1:1 sex ratio between men and women creates a sense of division by fundamentally looking at men and women as different when they should be looked at as the same in the workplace. It fosters a sense of "otherness", polarization, two separate groups and a sense of difference, when there should be a sense of LACK of importance of gender/sex.

Same pattern applies to racial diversity. By looking at skin color and purposefully categorizing people and trying to achieve a certain balance, you enhance a sense of group-identity and otherness that creates racial division in the first place.

I think this is why this issue seems so intractable. Just by talking about and labeling groups you help reinforce and create those groups and divisions between them.

[lomegor]

How could you solve the problem without indicating the group of people who is being treated differently?

I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.

[gopher2]

I guess first you have to specifically define "the problem" because there are tons of situations like this.

> no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now

Is this really true? Perhaps you could find ways to improve processes overall so that "equality" was an outcome of an improved unbiased process without focusing on specific race, sex or beliefs.

[sigzero]

I don't disagree in general but the 1-to-1 ratio is not going to happen.

[fizzbatter]

Sad that you're being downvoted[1]. People seem to think we can force a ratio and "win" in this scenario, it seems to be their goal. I never want a 1:1 ratio to be the goal.

I want equality. I want all women and men to have the jobs they desire. If that ends up 1.5 men for every woman in tech, that's okay! If it ends up with 2 women for every man that's okay!

Equality is not about the numbers. Focusing on the numbers will only lead to furthering equality issues.

1: were being downvoted at the time of my writing this, atleast heh.

edit: Sad that the people downvoting don't have the courage to discuss it on a forum. Be bigger, explain your points.. if you have any.

[tomp]

It's a divisive issue that people are very sensitive to, and if someone perceives your point as wrong, they will just downvote you. Deal with it, or don't comment on threads about sexism if you can't. Complaining about it is unlikely to make it better, and will only result in more downvotes.

[fizzbatter]

Eh, the downvotes weren't that bad. I wasn't complaining about the downvotes, as much as people acting in the manner you describe. I don't think i have it in me to not comment on that, just as they seem to not have it in them to attempt to silence the opposition heh.

[Goronmon]

It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM.

Why is this a desirable outcome?

[lomegor]

The question you should be asking, is why is it not?

[weberc2]

Because that question is easily answered: It seems the more desirable goal would be that women and men can equally find the kind of work they want, instead of being forced into or out-of jobs on some purposeless quota system.

[exstudent2]

If there is a 1:1 applicant pool then absolutely! If there is not a 1:1 hiring ratio implies hiring less qualified applicants to reach a quota (assuming equal distribution of skill, which I think most people would agree is the case).

[chrisBob]

I think 1:1 is a little bit of a stretch initially, but should be the long term goal. The short term goal for new hires should be to match the ratio of males:females graduating with degrees which is currently less than 1:1.[1] Once we reach that point then the number of women seeking a tech education will also rise.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing#Statistics_i...

[fizzbatter]

These (and race included) are such confusing things for me to reason about. On one hand, equality is of course the goal for everyone. However, these arbitrary numbers - "one to one", as you put it - often(always?) end up as their own special form of discrimination. It's a sad state of affairs when we must use one form of discrimination to fight another.

I wish i had answers, but all i see are problems.

[irremediable]

One to one isn't an arbitrary ratio, though; it's the ratio of women to men. There are questions about positive discrimination, but I feel I have to point that out.

[ori_b]

One to one is, however, not currently the ratio of women to men who are qualified as programmers. This implies that less qualified women will have to be hired at the expense of qualified men, in the world as it is now.

Shifting towards a 1:1 ratio would be nice, but that needs to be fixed by growing the talent pool, and isn't going to be solved at the hiring practice level.

[emodendroket]

There are pipeline issues too, but not exclusively.

[fizzbatter]

It's arbitrary in the sense that 1:1 implies meaningful equality. Forcing women and men to go in and out of fields they like simply to enforce numbers is not equality, at least in my sense of the word.

To me, giving women and men a fair and equal chance at working in X industry, is equality. We have no idea what that ratio would be though, but i highly doubt it would end up at 1:1.

[xienze]

> one female PM for every male PM

Where I've worked women far outnumber men in PM roles... and that's OK.

[xxxyy]

Under-representation of females in the IT industry is not a matter of hiring. Look at technical faculties all over the world and check their gender ratios. Or go to a gender-equalized party and start talking about technology, see what happens.

I'm not a misogynist, I like woman. But this lawsuit is not going to change anything, because it attacks just the symptoms. Women need to understand first that they really are just as good as men, consider Maire Curie or Ada Lovelace good examples.

[Demiurge]

Lawsuits and punitive actions are not intended to directly change anything. This particular suit seems to be intended to compensate a claimed victim. Alleviating symptoms is not exclusive with prevention.

[jsmthrowaway]

> I'm not a misogynist, I like woman. But this lawsuit is not going to change anything, because it attacks just the symptoms. Women need to understand first that they really are just as good as men, consider Maire Curie or Ada Lovelace good examples.

Yeah. The gender problem in tech is because women don't understand something. Astute observation there. Perhaps you can explain it to women?

[xxxyy]

My point was that for some reason women do not choose technology. And that hiring (i.e. the demand on the jobs market) is not the issue, the intent to work (the supply) is.

And my second point was that women are perfectly capable of doing arbitrarily challenging work in IT.

[tomp]

I don't think we should strive to achieve 1:1. Instead, we should strive to achieve the ideal life-work balance for each individual.

For example, in the Netherlands, where (if I understand correctly) companies are incentivised offer part-time positions, 60% of women choose to work only part-time [1].

[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/du...

[Mikeb85]

> It's an uphill battle, but one day there will be one female engineer for every male engineer, one female PM for every male PM.

Will never happen, if for no other reason than the fact that a non-trivial amount of women are stay-at-home mothers (even though it's far less than previous generations, plenty of mothers still choose this option).

[metaphorm]

I think you're conflating equality of outcome (not desirable) with equality of opportunity (desirable).