MIT Names First Female President

Big deal... by avalys · 2004-08-26 23:46 · Score: 5, Funny

When MIT announces the first robot president, I'll be listening.

--
This space intentionally left blank.

male/female/black/white by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-26 23:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Who cares? It's those who shout for equality who seem to be the first to highlight irrelevant differences; and such people are the first defence used by the prejudiced to block those with true potential.

Re:male/female/black/white by zaxios · 2004-08-27 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The present is a product of the past." Male/female/black/white have not traditionally been treated equally, and the current employment landscape still reflects its history. That can't just be ignored in the idealistic minority's hurry to move on. We can dream of true equality without regulation, but for the moment this and and this need practical solutions.
Re:male/female/black/white by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-27 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

So the solution to discrimination is more discrimination?

No, the solution to discrimination is the elimination of discrimination in every realm. The silly notion that we can somehow right the wrongs by giving those groups discriminated in the past preference over those who were not is just as wrong.
Re:male/female/black/white by PatrickThomson · 2004-08-27 00:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Precisely! My place of work is in the throes of equal opportunities policies that are simply insane. I appreciate the need to remove any lingering subconcious biases in the minds of those who conduct interviews, but not giving a job to someone because they're not in an under-filled denomination is pure discrimination

"sorry, we have too many white people, try again next week"

Honestly, these things are no more relevant than being left-handed.

Disclaimer: We don't work with members of the public who might have prejudices that affect the ability of, say, black disabled gay women to do the job effectively.

--
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Re:male/female/black/white by 9mind · 2004-08-27 01:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Being a black male who also doesn't believe in affirmative action, the plain and simple point is that there isn't a better alternative to it.
A lot of people say it's a bad idea this, and a bad idea that... however, history has shown, that companies supporting the "good ole boy" type of infrastructures have keep the minorities out through very shady practices.
My alternative to affirmative action would be that all interviews are recorded and stored off-site as they happen along with candidates resumes. Disputes in this case would have more merit without the need for affirative action. However, not all the hiring process goes on during the interview, so even this is not a 100% fool-proof. It would just give more merit to someone who thought they were discrimanted against.
Because in my experience, give someone the opportunity to pick what they are comfortable with over what may be better... they'll pick what they are more comfortable with.
Re:male/female/black/white by shufler · 2004-08-27 02:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Unless the job is lesbian porn. I don't wany any tranny surprises.
Re:male/female/black/white by Tanktalus · 2004-08-27 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gender actually can be a quality that matters to a job. Probably not this one, but sometimes.

For example, women often relate better to women when in psychiatric treatment, or when it's a police officer aiding a victim.

Personally, I prefer female chiropractors - mostly because they're smaller and less likely to be able to accidentally break my back ;-)

In other jobs, gender may not be the quality that matters to the job, but may influence qualities that matter to the job. Again, probably not this one.

For example, men are generally larger and thus stronger ("generally"!) and thus would probably be what most people - men and women - would prefer when being saved, half unconscious, from a burning building. On the other hand, women are generally better in interpersonal communication, and would often excel in HR, mediation (that's a big $$$ field nowadays!), and the like.

I'm not really fond of even the idea of "[h]ir[ing] the best man or woman for the job." How about just "hiring the best person for the job." If they have skills that are useful for the job being applied to, they're eligible.

While I don't support the idea of having a different bar to measure against for women and men trying to become police officers, I see no reason why we can't have different bars for different positions in the police force. Those becoming beat officers would have a different bar than those becoming hostage negotiators. And that may find that genders are not equally represented in all sections, but you'll probably get more qualified applicants than what they do now.

Just my 2 cents.
Re:male/female/black/white by WillowAnneLyra · 2004-08-27 02:50 · Score: 4, Informative

The kind of policy you are describing was declared unconstitutional about 25 years ago. Companies are NOT supposed to use any kind of quota system. They also are not allowed to use a literal point system for race. The idea of affermitive action is that all other things being equal (ie if given qualifications, people skills, etc, you'd probibly have to resort to coin tossing), you give the job to the person who is in the minority group. The is to offset the fact that often the white male would be given the job in a "they're both equally qualified".
Re:male/female/black/white by Fnkmaster · 2004-08-27 02:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm not saying that you are wrong, since there is some truth to what you say, but it is a truth about human nature, not a proof of discrimination. People in general do feel comfortable working with people who are "like them" in some abstract sense. Of course, working up in Massachusetts and doing a lot of hiring, I always found that I preferred the younger candidates for a job since I was myself young, and I identified with them (their work ethic, out-of-work interests, educational background, etc.) much more than the older candidates. Being able to relate to and communicate well with the people you work with IS critical.

But I also hired a black person (yeah, I know, sounds like a token, but if you know Massachusetts, you know there aren't exactly thousands of blacks applying for high tech jobs either, one of about 15-20 people I hired, along with 2 or 3 asians, and 2 Indians - to some extent, it just reflects the demographics of moderately qualified candidates who applied for jobs).

As a guy who grew up in New York City, a thoroughly urbanized young guy, in many ways I would identify more with a lot of black people more than I did with many of the middle aged, blue collar-ish white males I worked with. In any case, my point is that there are a lot of other factors that come into who people feel comfortable with and who they relate to beyond just the hue of their skin. These are complex cultural and background issues, whether people like to play golf, watch baseball or hack on open source code in their spare time, whether people are religious zealots or avowed atheists, whether people have 7 children or are sworn bachelors. All these things can have just as much effect on the hiring process as race does. That's why I don't believe in practicing affirmative action in the way it is now (I do support legislating non-discrimination, I just think it's generally pretty tough to enforce, since like I said, there are so many other arbitrary but often coupled factors involved in workplace fit that it's hard to say why certain people get promoted, why others get fired, and so on).

futurama quote by Janek+Kozicki · 2004-08-26 23:49 · Score: 5, Funny

fry: can't we just be together?
leela: listen - you are a man, I'm a woman. We're just too different.

--
# #\ @ ? Colonize Mars #

probably change towards good by Keruo · 2004-08-26 23:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Generally technology field has been boys club and most women around are usually surnamed .jpg.
Women at workplace usually balance the atmosphere towards more positive.
In paper industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run more efficiently and have less disputes among workers.

--
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.

Re:probably change towards good by mirio · 2004-08-27 00:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Generally technology field has been boys club and most women around are usually surnamed .jpg.
Women at workplace usually balance the atmosphere towards more positive.
In paper industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run more efficiently and have less disputes among workers.

I don't understand how we can look at gender in the workplace as being a positive thing (as in your example) but not also use it with the negative. For example, you would never hear someone say, "In X industry, some studies have shown that departments lead by female chiefs, run less efficiently and have more disputes among workers".

I guess it simply follows the tried and true rules of political correctness in the US: As long as you're basing your opinions of prejudice against white males, you're not really discriminating.

And yes, that's exactly what the above opinion does. It basically says that women chiefs/department heads/whatever create a better work environment than men -- prejudice.
Re:probably change towards good by dasunt · 2004-08-27 00:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I guess it simply follows the tried and true rules of political correctness in the US: As long as you're basing your opinions of prejudice against white males, you're not really discriminating.

Case in point -- the article itself. Few people see anything wrong with MIT promoting one gender over another as long as the gender they are promoting is female.

[PS: I've been called sexist for discussing this viewpoint before. ]
Re:probably change towards good by abda · 2004-08-27 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Case in point -- the article itself. Few people see anything wrong with MIT promoting one gender over another as long as the gender they are promoting is female. [PS: I've been called sexist for discussing this viewpoint before. ]
Yeah, well as much fun as it is to be "politically incorrect" or whatever, men don't need promoting because they are doing just fine. Women still get the short end of the stick in this country. They earn less money than men for the same job positions, and get treated like sex objects. People expect them to be pretty and dumb.

The status quo is unacceptable, and idealistic views (such as claiming that promoting women is sexist) aren't doing anything to help.

When will this kind of regulation go too far? by beh · 2004-08-26 23:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I do support equal opportunities/emancipation issues, has MIT selected this woman because she is female and very good in her area of expertise, or has MIT selected her because she was the best irrespective of gender?

Don't get me wrong here - if she is the BEST for the post, she should get it, but looking at things like the gender quotas like we have had in Germany - these are the wrong way (as they block progressing potentially better male candidates, if the female member quota hasn't been reached yet. This also led to a court case brought on by (IIRC) a civil cervant skipped in a promotion because there was another woman who could take the post - that case went all the way to the highest EU court which ruled that these kinds of quota regulations also are a form of gender discrimination and hence are deemed illegal.

And there are similar things happening - in a Swiss University I saw a notice for a competition about women in academic study courses, with a prize of EUR 10.000 for the best diploma thesis to be handed in by a female student that year. That particular competition notice actually had been put up by the "equal opportunities" advisor of the school... Where's the equal opportunity here?

In the UK, there is a female-only car insurance (Diamond), which will only accept female clientele because their insurance claims would in average be lower (hence allowing female drivers to save money, while indirectly increasing the insurance cost of males, by removing drivers with "lower claims" from male/female car insurance companies)...

Where's the equal opportunity here?

Re:When will this kind of regulation go too far? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-26 23:58 · Score: 5, Informative

MIT isn't promoting the fact that she is the first woman, the press is.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/president-ann ou ncement.html

From the announcement article it sounds like she was selected because she was best for the job overall. Not surprised at how the press it promoting it though.
Re:When will this kind of regulation go too far? by hurterer · 2004-08-27 00:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

With regard to the prize for best female whatever, the equal opportunity angle is that those prizes are attracting female students into the field, through the university. The prize's purpose isn't to reward current female students over current male students, it's there to encourage potential female students to pursue that course of study. They can't do the second thing without the first, in the current system.

As far as the insurance thing goes, insurance companies dont owe you shit. If you want better rates, then make all (young) men drive more safely.
Re:When will this kind of regulation go too far? by dave_mcmillen · 2004-08-27 00:30 · Score: 4, Informative

MIT isn't promoting the fact that she is the first woman, the press is.

Right - the article somehow makes it sound like this is a result of quota hiring, but there's nothing to suggest that.

Further note, grandparent post, that the "other recent programs' efforts" mentioned in the article involve getting girls in high school to participate in activities (and classes) related to computer science, electrical engineering, and math. This is far from some sort of quota program, and it seems to me to be a very sensible approach: if the problem is that too many girls are either shooed away from these fields or have never thought that they were an option, then give them a chance to see what it's all about, then decide for themselves.

The whole world is gender biased. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-26 23:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

People will not stop complaining about 'unfairness' until the whole world is perfectly split between the sexes, and that's never going to happen. We have women complaining that they never get the best positions at companies like upper management jobs.

Well, take a look in the coal mines. They too are very gender biased. You don't see many chicks underground with a jack-hammer. Funny, you don't see them complaining about this, either.

The reason women do not have as many of the 'top jobs' in this world is economics. If you hire a woman and she has a kid, then she will be gone for several months and you will have to pay her maternity leave even though she isn't there. Economically speaking, it's better to hire the man. I don't mean that a woman does not deserve the job or isn't capable of doing it, but managers look at the demographics and see that it is more profitable to hire a man. You could even argue that they are obligated to hire the man for the sake of the shareholders.

Re:The whole world is gender biased. by Artifex · 2004-08-27 00:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

The reason women do not have as many of the 'top jobs' in this world is economics. If you hire a woman and she has a kid, then she will be gone for several months and you will have to pay her maternity leave even though she isn't there. Economically speaking, it's better to hire the man. I don't mean that a woman does not deserve the job or isn't capable of doing it, but managers look at the demographics and see that it is more profitable to hire a man. You could even argue that they are obligated to hire the man for the sake of the shareholders.

Interestingly, most European nations take care of this disparity by granting new fathers potential leave as well.

--
Get off my launchpad!

Question for women by andy1307 · 2004-08-26 23:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

Are you more likely to apply to MIT because it has a women president?

An article related to this topic.

Is Evolution Leaving Men Behind?

Here's something Charles Darwin in all his philosophies never imagined. As the third millennium of the common era kicks off more American women than men are graduating with baccalaureate and post- baccalaureate degrees. More women are enrolled in law schools, journalism schools, and soon, they will exceed men in all professional schools, with the exception the dreary schools of engineering and business. At this rate, women will soon overtake men as the top wage earners. Evolution is leaving men behind.

McElroy, who writes a column for FoxNews.com, reports being dismayed at finding educated women who are "genuinely horrified at the prospect of dealing with 'lesser' and 'lower' men as equals in their personal lives." But one of the findings of evolutionary psychology is that females of whatever species are hot-wired to find the best possible mate.

The second para is kinda OT, but interesting nevertheless.

Re:Question for women by doodlelogic · 2004-08-27 00:22 · Score: 3, Informative

The original McElroy article (which itself has some interesting onward links) makes it clear that she does not view herself as one of these elitist women; it concludes:

"I still squirm at the thought of how many successful women now seem to view a large percentage of decent single men. Namely, as lesser and lower."

The Spectator may think that "females of whatever species are hot-wired to find the best possible mate" but McElroy clearly disagrees, at least if you reduce the best to a simplistic, status based analysis. It is a clever trick in the article, which makes it look as if that is what she was saying, when the journalist knows it was the opposite.

gender-biased... by tobi-wan-kenobi · 2004-08-26 23:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

i really risk getting flamed with this post, but here we go:

i _do_ gratulate her, because i believe she has really earned that position, but:

"...efforts to get more women involved in the MIT community..."
i really hope that this is not the reason she got elected president. you see, i think such positions should be awarded according to ability, _regardless_ of the gender. so "because of" is as wrong as "in spite of".

" a step in the right direction for the historically gender-biased institution?"
not as long as every time a woman is elected this or that, the fact that she is a woman is more stressed in the reports than the fact that she is doing a good job (or what she has achieved).

--
If you don't learn from history,
then you are an idiot by definition.
--- Vadim Yasinovsky

Which First is more important? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-26 23:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

She is also the first president with a life sciences background which is probably more relevant to the future of MIT than the make up of her chromosomes. I would prefer that the headlines note that MIT found the best president that it could and leave gender out of it.

Is it MIT that's gender biased.... by callipygian-showsyst · 2004-08-26 23:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

...or is it WOMEN who don't like math, science, and engineering?

--
Best Buy can have you arrested

Re:Is it MIT that's gender biased.... by tuxette · 2004-08-27 00:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is it they don't like math, science, and engineering?
Remember the "I hate math" Barbie doll? A raging debate ensued, and educators and others were forced to face (and deal with?) the issue of the assumption that not only do girls hate math and science, they are biologically programmed to do so. So the rule was girls are not supposed to like math and science, if they do there's something inherently wrong with them and thus we must ridicule and pressure them into becoming a proper female. And as most of us know how peer pressure can be, girls end up being conditioned to stay away from math and science if they ever want to be cool and have a life.
What was worse for me while growing up, was that I loved science and math. "Well, OK, but that's because you're Chinese" was what I always got back. The implication that I couldn't help myself for that or something. So not only did I get the derogatory labels regarding female geeks rubbed in my face, I got the racism as well.

--
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Re:Is it MIT that's gender biased.... by grumbel · 2004-08-27 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

How is that gender bias? Maybe it is simply true? Man and women are not equal and never will, remember the little birth thing and the children, man on the other side went hunt some animal a few thousand years ago. Just because we know have a society that makes them equal from the 'rights' point of view doesn't necesarry mean that they ever will behave equally, you can't wipe out a few million years of evolution with some hundred years of equal rights.

I am not saying that we shouldn't remove gender bias where it is truely there, just that we shouldn't automatically assume that there is a gender bias just because the distribution between man and women is not exactly 50/50.
Re:Is it MIT that's gender biased.... by zoeblade · 2004-08-27 00:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

...or is it WOMEN who don't like math, science, and engineering?

I think it's more a case that girls aren't encouraged to take an interest in such subjects as much as boys are. I'm lucky in that my parents got me a Commodore computer when I was very young, and I got really into it, but how many perents would do that for a girl? Would they instead be more likely to encourage something that it's more widely believed girls like doing?

Maybe it's a vicious circle. Girls are told they don't like maths or science so don't get a chance to try it properly, so they grow up to not be into it, so people think that women don't like it, so don't try teaching it to girls.

Just try your best to work out what kids are into and encourage it regardless of whether it's something considered appropriate for their gender.

Of course, articles making a big deal out of a woman being into computers (remember the one about that female hacker?) tend to reinforce the notion that this is unique and unusual, reinforcing the stereotype. It doens't help anybody get over such stereotypes, but it helps sell issues of newspapers apparently.

Sorry, I'm rambling now.

Dr. Hockfield's accomplishments by Guano_Jim · 2004-08-27 00:11 · Score: 5, Informative

A list of her recent publications can be read here.

From the page:

The main focus of our work is to bring biochemical and molecular biological techniques to the classical anatomical analysis of mammalian CNS development.

CNS being Central Nervous System, IIRC.

--
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com

If you went there... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-27 00:12 · Score: 3, Funny

If any of you actually went to MIT, you would realize that this whole thing is actually a ploy to get Aimee Smith to fucking shut up! Now when she talks about the overruling partiarchy, we'll finally be able to say, "*ahem* A woman is currently in charge."

Sexist policies by nuggz · 2004-08-27 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most people don't like math science and engineering.
I know lots of women who could be capable engineers, but chose other paths.

I don't think it really matters how many female engineers we have, as long as the end result is designed right neither should you.

I am getting sick of working with second rate 'quota' people. Particularly with the government they will put someone without the ability or experience to do a job but got the "Minority XXXX" points to land the job.

You end up with
#1 The job not being done right.
#2 Convincing anyone with the stereotype they are right because look, that kind of person can't do the job.
#3 A person who can't do the job getting frustrated. They either hate their job, and discourage others, or they quit. Then you end up having even more trouble recruiting group XXX into this position.

Removing barriers is one thing, silly quota/promotion games are wrong.

More ranting, in public school (I was 13 years old) The girls got to go to 'science day' at the local university to encourage them to go into science. Apparently it was very interesting, with lots of cool stuff.
Of course as a boy, I couldn't go. Welcome to the wonderful sexist world we live in where girls who don't care about science get encouragement, and guys who do care get slapped down.

wrong by HBI · 2004-08-27 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Discrimination has no solution. Look at the two alternatives:

Ignore the discrimination and trust to human nature: well, human nature doesn't have an exemplary history of ensuring nondiscrimination. Gender based roles (and racial/appearance based roles) are tightly integrated with just about every society whether animal or human, and a certain portion of the population (the 'followers') will feel constrained by these roles despite their fitness to take on others, absent gender/racial or appearance based stigma.
Have a whole host of rules and regulations to make sure society and employment are nondiscriminatory. This causes stigma for the beneficiaries of said regulation, with the perception (if not reality) that they are unqualified for the positions granted them by the regulation. Moreover, it also encourages corruption, whereby those of means are able to avoid the regulations. The net effect is that no one is happy - not the wronged groups, and not the traditional advantaged groups. Ultimately this will cause more discrimination as a result, solving nothing.

The belief of the 1960s progenitors of US affirmative action programs (most notably the late Sen. Moynihan) was that a period of #2 would permit #1 to succeed. I believe the last 40 years have proven him rather misguided. I don't know what the solution is - and I doubt there is one - but enforced discrimination isn't it.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.

Re:wrong by s.fontinalis · 2004-08-27 00:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

"rather misguided"? So it's still socially acceptable to mock blacks, women and other minorities, and denigrate them in public? The income levels for these minorities haven't risen? Things aren't perfect now, but much progress has been made in the last 40 years.
Re:wrong by HBI · 2004-08-27 01:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

You haven't walked the streets much apparently if you think progress has been made. While a black middle class has arisen, there are still just as many trapped in slums as before, and the racial stigma has not lifted. The problems have changed: it's no longer alcohol but rather other kinds of drugs that serve as the symptom. These are the followers: they are left behind.

In the business world, glass ceilings still exist for women. It isn't as apparent, but it's there. Moreover, I can count (but I consider it shocking) how many times i've been directed to 'find a woman' for a job because our ratios are horrible. Invariably, this is a low level job, and invariably, management doesn't give the women quite the same chance that the men have to bond with them.

In terms of mocking minorities, I am not going to repost something, but read my JE of a few months ago, happening right in suburban NJ. Then tell me things are better.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:wrong by Betelgeuse · 2004-08-27 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

You haven't walked the streets much apparently if you think progress has been made.

Are you kidding me?!? You honestly think that progress has not been made in the past 40 years of race/sex relations? The grandparent didn't say that all of the problems had been solved (and I would be the first to disagree there), but that progress had been made. I would say that the 24th Amendment (abolishing the poll tax) was progress. I'd say that allowing interracial marriage is progress. I'm ceratainly not saying that all of the problems have been solved, but there certainly has been progress.

--
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.

Education by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-27 00:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

You left out

3: Provide a sound education that encourages wisdom, ethics, and responsibility.

Naturally, if you continue thinking in the same old box, you'll have the same old problems.

Left out option 3 by theLOUDroom · 2004-08-27 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Discrimination has no solution. Look at the two alternatives:

You left out option 3:
Don't trust human nature by itself, make some laws to make discrimination illegal, WITHOUT actually enforcing another type of discrimination.

Look at the college application process. It should be illegal to ask about your gender or race on an application.

Fixing discrimination with discrimination is retarded, but making discrimination ilegal is not.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

High Praise for her work at Yale by Anonymous Coward · 2004-08-27 00:55 · Score: 3, Informative

She was Dean of the Graduate school here at Yale for years and had recently become Provost so this was a bit of a surprise here.

From an email broadcast by Yale's president to faculty and staff about Susan Hockfield's departure and contributions:

"Over the past six years, Susan has excelled as Dean of the Graduate School and as Provost, possessing in rare combination intelligence, integrity, pragmatism, and grace. As Dean she utterly transformed the environment in which graduate education takes place - strengthening support for teacher preparation and career services, and building a vibrant sense of community through public lectures and other events [...] In her three semesters as Provost she has moved aggressively to accelerate investment in science and medicine, and she has encouraged interdisciplinary collaboration across the humanities and the arts. She has made superb new appointments to our administrative ranks, and she has worked closely with the other officers to fashion plans for strengthening the culture and practice of management within the University."

MIT is getting a good person IMO.

Or they just don't like existing discrimination? by Moraelin · 2004-08-27 00:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let me tell you a true story from here. I call it "Jack and Jill up corporate hill".

Jack is the stereotypical incompetent monkey. He's a marketer who noticed that he could get more money if he switched to being a "programmer". Unfortunately his only IT skill is marketting himself to clueless PHBs. (I've worked with him before. He's the guy I mentioned that spent hours trying all combinations of *, & and nothing on every variable in C++, because he never could understand pointers.)

But the bosses _love_ Jack. Jack speaks their language. Jack may not be able to code shit, or anything else, but he knows how to say exactly what the bosses want to hear.

Jack also loves making compliments like "Hey, it's rare to see a chick with brains." (Said verbatim to a competent female employee who's programmed in assembly before. _Way_ more competent than him in any case.) He actually thinks it's a compliment, and not the sexist idiocy that it really is.

Jill, for better or worse, did finish a CS college. No, she's not a genius, but I'd say at least more competent than half the monkeys hired in that department just because they were cheap.

Jack has been on a sort of a personal Jihad against Jill for more than a year. He'd hunt every single mistake in her code and run show it to everyone else, or humiliate her in front of other employees.

He came to me a few times with such "proofs" that Jill writes bad code. Invariably Jill's code was right, and it just showed that Jack didn't understand even the _basics_ of Java. The language he's paid to program in these days. E.g., he didn't know that String constants are internalized.

I called him an idiot to his face on those occasions, and explained to him why Jill's code works and is OK. (Hey, I never said I was a diplomat.) He stopped coming to me, and I thought he got over it. I was wrong.

Recently Jack got promoted to team leader. (As I've said, the bosses _love_ him.)

Their team also had grown with two people fresh out of college. Again a male and a female. Let's call them Dick and Jane. Jane was undoubtedly inexperienced. On the other hand, Dick, by everyone else's assessment, bosses _and_ coworkers alike, was a fscking catastrophe.

What does Jack do? Jack recommends that they fire Jane, but keep Dick. The boss's question? "Huh? Why Jane? I thought Dick was the catastrophe."

Jack insists however that they keep Dick, reasoning that it would be bad for the project to fire both, and Dick will probably learn along the way. Takes all his marketting skills, but he gets the boss to aggree.

So Jane packs her bags, and Dick, for all I know, is still blundering to even understand Java, but still in that team.

Now let's get back to Jill. As I've said, at one point I thought Jack had gotten past his unexplicable feud against her. As I should have guessed, he was actually just avoiding me, after I had called him an idiot.

What's Jack doing now, in his team leader position? Finally getting Jill fired.

So it seems to me like you don't even have to try hard to see discrimination in action. You just need an open mind, which is really what's lacking.

CS _is_ a boy's club. Hiring interviews are conducted by prejudiced people. You have prejudiced people as team leaders and co-workers, spewing sexist idiocies without even realizing it. Or being condescending and treating you a priori like a poor retard just because of gender preconceptions. And you have to interact with prejudiced clients and internal PHBs, who need to assert their testosterone supremacy anyway, but doubly so when it comes to women in tech fields.

Seems to me that anyone who's not outright fired, needs a pretty thick skin to stay in CS. A lot prefer to just leave. I've seen people bail out of CS and into other jobs because of this. (E.g., from programming to usability or whatever else, which isn't as supposed to be an exclusive boys' club.)

And the results of this aren't even perceived as the results of blatant discrimination, but used as further "proof" that women aren't fit to use a computer.

It's not even the only discrimination in this field. Age discrimination against males is at least as widespread.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.

How Affirmative Action works with us by mks113 · 2004-08-27 00:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

We were hiring for a full time engineer, and our HR purson explained it to us like this: "All candidates are scored. If a male and a female score equally well and are both considered acceptable, then the female will be offered the position."

Not that complicated, not discriminatory. If the guy scores better, he gets the offer. Also note that the scoring was largely subjective -- there were plenty of opportunities to get the person you wanted.

Re:How Affirmative Action works with us by general_re · 2004-08-27 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not that complicated, not discriminatory.
Of course it's discriminatory - the fact that it's a legal, politically-correct sort of discrimination doesn't change the fact that you're discriminating against one gender or the other. If their scores are equal, you're basically saying that there is no difference as far as merit is concerned, and so you select your candidate based on their gender. It doesn't matter which one you choose based on gender, it's the fact that gender becomes the deciding criterion that makes it discriminatory - it would be equally discriminatory to choose only men when faced with candidates of equal qualifications. If you want an equal, non-discriminatory way of choosing among similarly qualified applicants, try flipping a coin next time.
Then again, what do I know? I think the whole equal-opportunity thing is bullshit anyway...

--
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
Re:How Affirmative Action works with us by Bob+Uhl · 2004-08-27 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not that complicated, not discriminatory.
Let's change that rule, then: all candidates are scored; if a man and a woman score the same and are both acceptable, then the man will be offered the position. Would you find that non-discriminatory?
That rule is prejudiced against men, and for women. The fair thing to do in a case where two candidates score equally is to decide randomly.

gender bias? by (trb001) · 2004-08-27 01:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

While I fully support editors editorializing in their descriptions of news stories...

is this a step in the right direction for the historically gender-biased institution? ...the fact that they didn't have a woman as president before does not a gender biased institution make. I've never seen a female garbageman(person) before either, that doesn't mean the entire field is biased against women, it probably means women don't look for that position or that they weren't qualified (hard to imagine, but I'm sure there are qualifications for being a garbageman).

--trb

The summary said it all by FunWithHeadlines · 2004-08-27 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

You know when things will really have changed for women? When this isn't news. Look at the summary of this story: It trumpets the fact that a woman has taken a role of great prominence and responsiblity...but doesn't mention her name. As long as women are identified as generic "woman" instead of personalized as the actual women they are as individuals with their own skills and talents, things have not changed as much as they should have.

Re:IT IS NOT GENDER IT IS SEX by avalys · 2004-08-27 01:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Loose control of the language and you will loose the arguement

Well then, it looks like you've lost, doesn't it?

--
This space intentionally left blank.

define "race" by Colonel+Cholling · 2004-08-27 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Look at the college application process. It should be illegal to ask about your gender or race on an application.

There's another option here, and I'm waiting to see someone use it. The very concept of "race" is unscientific: not only are there no medical tests which can determine to which race someone belongs (since what we call different races are not hard-and-fast genetic differences, but rather vague clusters of certain traits to which we give names like "black" or "Asian"), but, at least in America, there are no strict legal definitions for race. The only proof an institution has that a given individual is a member of a certain race is that person's word. So the answer is to list your race as whatever you think the institution's acceptance policy is biased toward. If they accuse you of falsifying your race in order to thwart affirmative action, simply ask them to prove that you are not, in fact, of the race you claim to be. This is, of course, impossible. Maybe if there were enough court cases about this it would finally pave the way to ending the legal fiction of race.

Biological sex, of course, is another issue, since there are scientific and legal definitions thereof. However, with intersexed and transgendered individuals making it more interesting, one's gender identity and biological sex may not always coincide neatly.

--

I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.

huh? by TamMan2000 · 2004-08-27 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.

How is "Make it illegal to have a 'race' field on college applicaitons" equivilant to "require X% of admissions to be Y", or "being Z earns you W more points towards admissions"?

The point is you can't discriminate based on race if you are unaware of someones race. It is not practical for any process containing an interview, but for a paper process (like most college addmisions) it is bullet proof.

--
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...

Chicken & egg by bondgrrl · 2004-08-27 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are there not more women in geek fields? If the 99% male /. crowd experienced life from the other side youd understand why.

It's chicken and egg. You don't get many women taking geek roles in society because those roles are male dominated. Let's take a simplified hypothetical scenario:

Think of the teenage girl on a campus open-day. She likes coding but has never been encouraged at it. She looks in at university computer lab and sees 50 sweating/overweight/horrendously thin pale boys, all with mildly-pornographic desktops and wearing Tux t-shirts (a stereotype that I've seen borne out often enough to not be a stereotype). She tries talking to one of the students. Gets told that the EnglishLit building is next door. She tries talking to another group of students. Wow, she gets sniggered at by emotionally immature male geeks.

So, due to this experience the girl doesn't want to join this particular highly exclusive and, believe me, misogynistic male dominated profession. The profession takes this as proof that women are unsuited for their work, reinforcing the misogyny that prevents women joining in the first place.

Yeah, so I'm simplifying. But women get told their entire lives - by their mothers, their teachers, their fathers, society - that geek roles are not for women. If you take such a role then you obviously do so because you are a failure as a woman. Do you really expect women to want to join something that theyve been told to loathe?

Now, let's twist the scenario around. Now, how many men can honestly say that they are able to cry at a movie? Who can cuddle up to their best male friend on the sofa? Who actually talk about their emotions? Come on, raise your hands. Oh dear, I don't see many. Now are you telling me that men are biologically incapable of performing those acts? Like fuck you are. You wouldn't be so stupid. Men don't do those things BECAUSE SOCIETY TELLS THEM NOT TO. You're soft, you're a sissy, you're gay, youre not a man if you do any of these things. D'ya see what Im getting at here guys?

Sorry for ranting or if I sound like I'm trying to preach. It just really frustrates me that I see so many geek women turn away from geek roles (or who keep them as a dirty little secret) just because society says no. I don't know if discrimination against men in job applications is the answer, but you cant just leave it to "let managers pick the best person for the job". There IS inherent sexism in the geek world. If you can't see the forest then its because of all the trees.

--
"What can I say? I'm the queen of java."
subduction.net

A counterpoint by Geoff-with-a-G · 2004-08-27 03:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm putting forth this argument, because I don't see it anywhere else in these comments. There seem to be about 15 "5 - Insightful" comments all saying the same thing, and while I mostly agree with them, I don't like one sided arguments that paint things as simpler than they really are.

The prevailing mindset here seems to be: "Encouraging diversity by lending extra weight to minority candidates is actually discrimination against non-minority candidates, and therefore is bad"

That's not an unreasonable way to look at it, but there's an inteligent other side which isn't saying "discrimination against white males is okay", as the strawman posts here state. The intelligent other side of this argument goes like this:

1. There are prejudiced people out there, people who discriminate against various minorities. If you honestly don't believe this, then you don't get out enough.

2. This prejudice almost always comes from ignorance. By very definition, prejudice means you don't have detailed knowledge of the subject. Most people who interact on a daily basis with multiple people who are [pick a minority] tend to lose their prejudices.

Imagine you have a small firm of some kind, made up entirely of white men who are genuinely prejudiced. They truly believe that black people and women are poor workers. As a result, they are unlikely to ever hire anyone black or female, and are likely to go on believing in their current prejudices. On the other hand, if they were forced to hire black people and women, there's a decent chance (not 100%, but probably more than 20%) that over time the exposure would cause their prejudices to erode, and that they'd begin hiring genuinely qualified members of various minorities of their own volition.

That's basically the thinking behind the affirmative action, quotas, and reverse-discrimination. It's not that "white men are bad and should be punished", or that "we owe minorities for past wrongs, and should make it up to them now". It's that the best way to get rid of existing prejudice is to expose to diverse groups of people, which is something they won't do if left to their own devices.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the good accomplished by this approach is worth the cost, but I at least acknowledge that the other side of the argument means well and has a reasonable point.

Re:enforcement by theLOUDroom · 2004-08-27 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

How do you enforce this? With EEOCs? Jail time? Bullet to the head?

The same we enforce all the other laws that relate to how a company operates. Duh.

If you ignore it, it's the functional equivalent of #1 in the grandparent.

Obviously you won't ignore it.

If you enforce it, it's the functional equivalent of #2 in the grandparent.

No more that using the police to catch murders is still "relying on human nature".

In other words, no solution at all.

Actually, it's a quite reasonable solution, you're just coming up with issues that are non-issues, and only by making ridiculous assumptions like:
"Okay, so we pass this law, but what if we don't enforce it?"

--
Life is too short to proofread.

Re:hasn't been tried by radarsat1 · 2004-08-27 04:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

And that's why School, as it is structured today, is no longer applicable to the way the real world is structured. The idea of sticking thousands of kids with different backgrounds and different opinions and viewpoints and ethics into one building and teaching them the exact same way is becoming more and more obsolete. Education begins at home.

but an increasing number are abusive by Trepidity · 2004-08-27 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

An increasing proportion of women, especially at some schools with strong affirmative action programs, are either incompetent, or willfully game the system. Several of my friends count in the "gaming the system" group. They're intelligent, but they don't learn anything or do any work: they know that as long as they do a bare minimum, the professor will give them an A or B, because giving a lower grade would cause the professor problems as people ask why this white male professor was giving the only woman in his class a bad grade. In fact, it is pretty much impossible for them not to graduate, because the school cannot afford to have its already poor "percentage of women in the EE department" numbers look even worse. So they graduate people who purposely do no work.

Doesn't end after college either. These same women, who graduated with a decent GPA despite knowing nothing, get hired to do nothing at companies, which don't fire them because they serve a useful purpose for the company's diversity statistics. I know people who admit doing this, and have absolutely no trouble doing so.

This isn't anything particularly unique about women. If you tell a group of people that they can do a half-assed job and still succeed, many people will. Hell, I would.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10

Slashdot Mirror

MIT Names First Female President

53 of 540 comments (clear)