Changing the Ratio of Women In Tech: How Etsy Did It

First time accepted submitter occidental writes in about Etsy's push to get more women engineers. "You’ve probably heard of Etsy, the bustling online marketplace for crafters and artists. You probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that most of its customers are women, both buyers and sellers. Ditto that the Etsy team is a pretty good representation of the Earth’s gender ratio. Yet when Marc Hedlund took the helm of Etsy’s Product Development & Engineering department, 97% of the engineering department were men. Hedlund realized that in his nearly two decades in IT, he’s hired no more than 20 women for engineering positions. This began to bother him. Especially after his daughter was born."

Comments

Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Karganeth]

Typically you see a rule like "at least 10% of the workforce m ust be x% female". This means that people will be hired according to their gender - sexism is built into the system. The same applies to many anti racist rules. You can't ever have rules that explicitly favor one gender over another.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Raedwald]

Typically you see a rule like "at least 10% of the workforce m ust be x% female".

But TFA Says

Don’t lower hiring standards, or make exceptions or compromises

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what exactly changes if they were hiring the best people anyways?

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Sockatume]

And if we lived in a universe where there wasn't an empirically demonstrated bias against women and ethnic minorities (having the same level of suitability) in hiring decisions across almost all fields, you'd have a point. Unfortunately the problem is very real and very well documented, and it's preventing us from hiring optimally, much less fairly.

Affirmative action supposes that the first step to eliminating that bias is to ensure that the individuals making these decisions are representative of the population as a whole.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[jamesbulman]

Expand the pool of candidates applying for the job.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Zapotek]

They get to appear all feminist and enlightened in the media.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[robthebloke]

Well, about a year ago I was working in a games company (~120 employees) that had no female developers, artists, or producers. In total there were three female employees: the office manager, the HR manager, and the cleaner. Over the seven years I worked there, we hired 3 women, but they'd all leave after about six months... possibly as a result of having 50+ horny games devs constantly trying to hit on them (in fairness, they may have left due to other reasons, but I doubt it helped much). It's sad to say, but in the games industry there are a large number of immature men (boys is a more accurate decsription), who think that women are nothing more than boobs on legs. They often act creepily around them, sending them unwanted valentines cards, hanging around their desks like bad smells, etc, etc. In short, these people just don't know how to interact properly in civilised society, especially around women.

I'm now working in a film VFX company, and the difference is night and day. On the software teams, about 20% of the employees are female, and on the art teams, it's about 50%. The female software devs aren't for show either, they are more than capable of holding their own when it comes to C++/SIMD/GPU/Graphics coding, and it's actually been a really refreshing change from the games industry! Really though, the difference between the two comes down to one thing only. In VFX, women are treated with the respect. In Games, they're often treated as the office oddity.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[L4t3r4lu5]

American History X, the flashback scene around the dinner table when a young Derek Vinyard is talking to his dad about the Affirmative Action policy at the firestation. If you take out the racial slurs, you can't help but see the guy's point. Would you want someone of lower capability than an other applicant working on your team just because some bureaucrat thinks a quota of $gender/race is the correct way to bring diversity to the workplace? It is even the correct kind of diversity? Diversity of experience, opinion, skillset, or interest is surely something better to strive towards.

On the other hand, we have the Catch 22 of women not working in $Career, so girls don't take an interest in $Career at an early age, meaning women don't apply for jobs in $Career. Is it the fault of society for not making careers in, say, engineering more glamorous? Should we push hard for intellect being more attractive than physical appearance? Should we stop seeing a chosen occupation as inherently masculine or feminine? Is it upbringing or genetic predisposition?

This is why Sociology exists.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

Did they not let women apply before?

This means if they get two similarly qualified candidates they will select a woman if their quota needs one. That means males who apply are being discriminated against.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[__aaltlg1547]

The problem of hiring female engineers happens because there are very few female applicants. I've interviewed one female applicant, ever, in 20 years as an engineer. ONE. I've worked for a number of engineering companies, small and large and I can count on ONE HAND the number of female engineering co-workers I have had, out of hundreds of engineers. They were all good at their jobs. I wouldn't hesitate to hire a woman engineer, if there was one available.

My sister is an engineer and my niece is in engineering school. They are the only two female engineers in my whole extended family, but there are dozens of male engineers, scientists and programmers.

I don't know why, but women, at least in the USA, almost universally lack interest in being engineers. No hiring policy can change that.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[hedwards]

If you're talking about the US, then there is no such bias against women.

You see the same lack of women at the bottom of society that you do at the top of society. It's called the Apex Fallacy and it's complete horseshit. You have a different clustering of jobs between men and women and thanks to societal changes that disproportionately reward people at the top, you see a bit of an income disparity between men and women.

Ultimately, if we control for the distribution of income you'll find that the income differences between men and women are quite small indeed, it's just that since income is skewed towards the rich that the men that are poorer than their female counterparts don't add as much to the calculation.

What's more, most college students are female by about a 2:1 ratio and they basically get away with murder. I've sat through many "sex discrimination" lectures over the years which were basically just excuses to bash men for all the imagined slights and to just use sound bite quotes with no understanding of where they came from and why to rationalize it.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[T.E.D.]

"at least 10% of the workforce m ust be x% female". This means that people will be hired according to their gender - sexism

When you get down to a point where you have trouble getting 10% of a group of people who are a majority of the population at large, isn't it a wee bit late to suddenly get all upset about discrimination?

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[jythie]

It means examining bais. Changing a name on a resume to change gender or ethnicity often results in interpretations of the resume, with european male names often being rated as seeming more competent even when the exact same resume with another type of name on it is read as less capable.

So the problem is, people think they are hiring the 'best' people in an unbiased way, but statistically they are not. Addressing that in your hiring process leads to better people because there is a significant talent pool out there who are consistently rated lower then their actual abilities reflect.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[jythie]

It is generally not that complicated... when women complain about how they are being treated, listen and adjust. Unfortunately the typical response in the industry is to tell them to stop complaining.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[AmiMoJo]

You are assuming that all the female candidates are of lower quality and that is why they don't get hired in the first place. That assumption is wrong. Sometimes they don't get hired because the person hiring them is biased against their gender (they won't fit in, might generate sexual harassment lawsuits etc.).

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Sockatume]

I shouldn't have to dig up an uncontroversial result from a decade and a half ago, but the classic study would be:

http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

Which of course is the first Google result for "study gender cv name". The remainder of the results will point you to several modern replications. Enjoy.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[TheRaven64]

If they were predominantly picking the man previously in this situation, then women were discriminated against. If they are picking women if they have under a certain percentage and men if they have over a certain percentage then they are effectively doing round-robin selection.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

A better solution is to just pick the best candidate no matter what. If that means having to hide the candidates identity that is fine.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[TheRaven64]

Affirmative action also has some nasty negative side effects. First, if people are aware of it, then there is a perception that anyone in the group that is being discriminated in favour of got there because of it. If you have to hire a woman for a particular job, and the best qualified woman has ten years more experience than the nearest-qualified man, better references, and does much better in the interview, then she will still have to fight the perception from people who weren't directly involved in the hiring that she only got the job because of her gender.

Beyond that, if people in group X have lower standards of entry into job Y, then the average quality of people of group X performing job Y will be lower. People will notice this, and assume that it's because people in group X suck at Y. It then becomes much harder for the ones that are capable and qualified.

You don't get more competent people into a job by fostering the perception that they aren't able to do it.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[TheRaven64]

The problem is that there often isn't a better candidate. There are two candidates who have slightly different strengths. Either can do the job you need, and either will bring something extra (but not the same thing) to the team. So you pick one because of some subconscious factor, which you're probably not aware of. Picking based on some algorithm that attempts to guarantee fairness helps suppress these biases.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

Then use some actual random function. A coin toss should be fine. That will at least be fair.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

The correct solution to that is to remove names from resumes all together.

Again the problem is the process and the solution is not an even worse process but a better one.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

Voice masking works fine. To prevent sexism in the workplace you terminate the problem workers.

You are an adult, expecting you to act like on is not outside the scope of what your employer expects.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[jythie]

I am not sure it really needs to be that complicated. Simply being aware that it is part of one's thought process is often enough to reduce it by a significant margin. Sadly people do not like to think they have bais and many fight the implication. In a way we might actually benefit from de-stigmatizing having bais and focus more on how much the person lets it influence their decision making process.

As for the club affiliation, a common piece of resume advice people are still given today is to remove black/ethnic clubs and activities from their resume, and esp remove anything with an activism feel to it (unless it activism likely to resonate with the HR staff), and apparently people report that this results in more callbacks, though I am not aware of any controlled studies seeing if it is the case or not.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[kick6]

It is generally not that complicated... when women complain about how they are being treated, listen and adjust. Unfortunately the typical response in the industry is to tell them to stop complaining.

Because that's what we tell the men too. So actually, listening to the women and adjusting is being sexist...because nobody affords the men the same treatment.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if they're similarly qualified, then the decision is arbitrary on the individual hire level. All things being equal, they choose the woman to balance out the systemic bias in the system. Which they do because, y'know, there's a massive fucking systemic bias in the system, which that woman had to overcome just to get in the running for the job.

So, it's fair in that situation (given that they're equally qualified, and have to be by design of the law), and it's fair on a macro level, because it's in balance against the proven unfair advantage that males have in the hiring equation. So quit whining.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[firex726]

If you're referring to that wage gap crap, it's been debunked time and time again.
In terms of education, more women are graduating than men.
Women have the advantage of affirmative action.
Women have the advantage of women only scholarships.

So where is the tilting of the scales for men in nursing, teaching and early child development?
Where are the employment campaigns for more women in dangerous or hard labor jobs?
Where is the outrage that women are only getting 60% of the jail terms men do for the same crimes?

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

There is no such human.

All humans have biases, some only don't realize it.

Sure some people will not hire women, they are easy to identify and not the real problem. The real problem is that one resume sent out with an ethnic name, a female name and a stereotypical white male name will get more responses for the last case. Even though the content did not change. Very few of those reviewers will be suspected of being sexist or racist, but these sort of things are built into our culture. Shaniqua will be expected to be less competent than Sara who will be expected to be less competent than Steven. Even by people who do not realize they are doing it.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[h4rr4r]

I have probably hired 10-20 people.
None using that method, but I would like to try it one day.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Ben4jammin]

FTA:

Don’t lower hiring standards, or make exceptions or compromises.

Bring in as many candidates as possible.

My take away from this is that while the historical hiring they did was "best candidates available" they realized that there were things they could do to expand the hiring pool that may change how many of the "best candidates available" are women.
Not surprising to see a company try to improve their hiring practices.

Doesn't mean they are going to discriminate against men.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[mcvos]

RTFA. They changed the way they reached out to candidates, and didn't chase away women right away with unnecessarily confrontational questions.

Also, It's not just about getting better individual people, but about ending up with a better mix of employees. Companies with more diversity tend to do better.

They don't hire women because they have to, they hire women because they're better. When a man is better, they hire the man.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Vaphell]

no, not really.
You can't blame nordic countries for sexism or discrimination, yet in Norway they still have only 10% female engineers. Paradoxically, the more people are free, the more likely they are to pursue stereotypical gender roles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ @5:30, 29:30

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[somersault]

So you pick one because of some subconscious factor, which you're probably not aware of

Like you're ever unaware of the cleavage.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Alomex]

Would you want someone of lower capability than an other applicant working on your team just because some bureaucrat thinks a quota of $gender/race is the correct way to bring diversity to the workplace?

I dunno, you seem perfectly comfortable with a bunch of undeserving white professionals who got there simply because they were born in first/second base thanks to past discrimination and they would not have made it at all, had they started from the dug out, like a kid from the ghetto.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[bickerdyke]

From my experience, if you have a 100% homogenous workforce (e.g. all male, or all CS absolvents) adding a single "outsider" will have a negative effect on work environment.

The positive effects of diversity will settle in later, if you established something closer to true diversity.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[luis_a_espinal]

Then use some actual random function. A coin toss should be fine. That will at least be fair.

It is also fair to introduce some bias to ensure a more equitable distribution of jobs among equally qualifiable candidates of different genders. As a man, I don't get why this is so treatening or unfair to some of you guys. Seriously.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[scot4875]

In other words: "you just don't get it. You're the problem but I'm not going to tell you why."

What a constructive and logical response! Bonus points for the additional "socially retarded" shaming.

--Jeremy

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

Wait? Are you telling me that females are supposed to be the ones with the cleavage in IT?

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is a lot of managers don't recognize when the best candidate is a woman. Women are different to men, obviously, and thus have different strengths. These are often not things you can put in a list of bullet points, and the guys doing the hiring tend to compare the candidates to the guys they already have.

There are many subtle reasons why women are still not equal to men in the world of work. Turns out merely trying hard to be fair and equal is not enough, at least for today. Hopefully in the future when the balance is closer to 50/50 it will be.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[MacGyver2210]

That is incredibly ignorant. No, women were NOT being 'discriminated against'. There just weren't anywhere near as many women applicants. The tech sector is rife with complaints about the lack of women, and yet, women go into technical fields and apply for jobs in that area a fractional percent as often as men do.

If you have a pool of applicants, hire the most qualified ones. If women are pissed they weren't chosen, they should work harder and get better at what they do so they will be chosen the next time. It's better than complaining that they didn't get the job due to lack of a penis.

If there is any evidence of impropriety or discrimination, that shit should be dealt with immediately. Short of that, don't hire based on gender or race. Hire based on ability.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[aardvarkjoe]

It is also fair to introduce some bias...

Are you reading what you're typing?

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[CastrTroy]

Except that when 2 people are equal in skill set, you defer to other qualifications such as which person you think will work better with the existing employees, or which person will just be more fun to have around the office. Perhaps it's which person you think will be more likely to stay late a few nights a week, or which person you won't likely have to find a replacement for when they go on maternity leave. So if 2 people are equally qualified, you're probably going to choose the one that's got a better personality, or who made a better joke during the interview process, or who likes the same sports you do. That last reason about maternity leave is a big reason cited why women of a certain age aren't hired. But it's a serious business concern. When there's 2 equally qualified people, and one has a bigger chance of being gone in a year, you're going to hire the person that is more likely to stick around.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[RobbieCrash]

I'm sorry, but you;'re incorrect about the wage gap being debunked "time and time again." While the wage gap is not 70cents on the dollar anymore, there is a significant difference in women's pay. In Ontario, according to Stats Canada, the gap is currently 25%. It's also the same in the US according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is worse than it has been since 2005.

I'm very sorry you feel discriminated against, but this supposed attack on male rights is horse shit made up by bitter people who cannot tolerate the fact that 1000 years of cultural manipulation by us white men is being undone.

The numbers of male nurses has increased incredibly in the last 30 years, and male nurses are currently making significantly more money than women, and are in higher positions.

There are massive campaigns to get more men involved teaching, and early child development. There's also employment campaigns to get more women involved in trades, including the more dangerous ones, those campaigns are primarily ones which you complain about in your first paragraph (scholarships directed at women).

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[erice]

You just redefine what 'best' means.

Not necessarily. If you improve benefits in such a way that the job becomes more appealing to women, more qualified women will apply. Child care, for instance. It would be a benefit for any employee that has children but, statistically, women are more likely to be single parents and take greater responsibility for children in a two parent family.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[router]

This. The most uncomfortable sexual discussions ever held in my presence, in the workplace, were from women. I have been subject to sexual harassment at work, and it was from a woman. Shit goes both ways, the real kicker is that some women think they are doing men a favor by being hypersexual in the workplace. How retarded is that?

andy

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[operagost]

If they were predominantly picking the man previously in this situation, then women were discriminated against.

This is not a logical conclusion. I'm embarrassed to have to spell it out to an adult, but if you had several candidates and the best ones happen to be male, you pick them. Picking the male is not ipso facto discrimination any more than picking the female if you were in a field dominated by women, like elementary school teachers.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[epyT-R]

How do you know this? Skill testing should focus on testing such skillsets, not character assessment. The gender doesn't matter. Just pick the best applicant.

It's interesting that you're willing to acknowledge differences in the genders when you want to show women in a positive light (they have different strengths), but in situations where men naturally do better (trying hard to be 'fair and equal' is not enough), suddenly it's a social problem that needs intervention. I wonder if you are just unaware of how much propagandic swill you've swallowed since your college years. It's hypocritical and, frankly, insane. I recommend you reevaluate your position, that is, if you are truly interested in hiring the best candidates and not just cowering to peer pressure to be 'politically correct'.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[thesandtiger]

That's the thing, though - telling people to just suck it up and deal is a shitty response because it basically lowers everyone.

Why should anyone, regardless of gender, tolerate being treated poorly where they work? There's no law of physics that states that work has to be a soul destroying experience or that employees need to take shit and like it.

I find it pretty depressing that so many people are behaving like putting up with abuse is a *good* thing.

Re:Anti sexist policies are almost always sexist

[Cederic]

Actually if there's a ship going down and the crew refuse to let a man board a lifeboat because there's a woman waiting in the queue behind him, I'm going to attack those crew in his defence. He has as much right to a chance of survival as she does.

Chivalry is all well and nice, but women want equality. That includes an equal chance of dying.

It's to bad

[Murdoch5]

The problem is most women just aren't interested in engineering type roles. I know 1 female engineer out of the 40+ women I know, all the rest can't stand doing math, physic's or even intense thinking. I think part of the problem is that when kids grow up boys are taught to build and women are taught to be pretty, when a boy plays with Lego or other similar products in a sense he's engineering. On the other hand girls are given a barbie and a easy bake oven and told to have fun, how is that going to lead to a career in engineering. I think the problem needs to be fixed at the child level.

Re:It's to bad

[firex726]

Question is why are they not interested?
I have never heard of a credible biological reason to this, is there a "scientist" gene that is present in only men? I would find that hard to belive.

Personally I think you're right about development of young children. Want more women in STEM? Then give them things like video games and Legos to play with as children to help foster that interest.
It's unreasonable to tell them for 12+ years that those are BOY TOYS then expect them to overnight develop an interest.

Re:It's to bad

[Murdoch5]

ya what woman would want someone who supports women in engineering! I know right, unthinkable, ass.

Re:It's to bad

[RussR42]

Obligatory xkcd (Although something seems to have gone wrong, it's an SMBC)

Re:It's to bad

[PPalmgren]

There might actually be a biological reason. I was watching a documentary on the brain on NatGeo, and they brought up a study on chimps while discussing the general differences between the male and female brain. They gave chimps who had lived without human interaction some human toys. Even among chimps without our cultural influence, the males predominantly chose the trucks and the females predominantly chose the dolls.

This was like a decade ago so I don't know the significance of that study or if it has been debunked, but I always found it interesting.

Re:It's to bad

[firex726]

Oh yes there are differences in the brains of both genders, I just can't see it being the sole justification for the gulf we are observing; especially when you compare it to history,

Men used to dominate the health and teaching fields; yet now are a small minority; 200 years is nowhere near enough time for a biological change to have happened on such a wide a scale and with such an impact.

I would suggest that our social norms are a much better candidate.

Not so hard really

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Don't be combative (this will get you better male employees as well)
2) Don't allow your team to be combative (mgmt needs to do their job in reigning in aggressive team members)
3) Recognize and punish prejudice in the interview/work place (I've witnessed this several times with some being harder on women for no apparent reason)

That's it really. I've worked with a lot of women in tech, and they do fine. There are some environments though that aren't fitting for ANYONE, and men tend to end up there. Women tend to think about problems differently, which if you are looking for the best team is something you should want. Sadly, those that approach problems differently have tended to be hounded into submission in some work places. It doesn't matter if they're presenting a valid point, the receivers can't seem to process the approach and discount everything. In truth, it's many of the men who have no business being in the roles their in. That have no idea how to handle running a team. Add that to mgmt who never seems to like to put an engineer in their place, or worse, agrees with the hostility and you get a place no one wants to work in.

Headline

[rossdee]

I think the headline should read:

Changing the ratio of women to men in tech How they did it.

Re:Headline

[drinkypoo]

I think the headline should read:

Changing the ratio of women to men in tech How they did it.

Is that because you think a reasonable person would otherwise assume that the ratio is women to cheeseburgers or women to solar flares or women to rutabagas?

Stop with this myopic bullshit!

[ixarux]

Bullshit!

Policies are not all myopic decisions that affect just a single generation.

When you make a policy, you are looking at its impact in the long run. By having more women in the workplace you are encouraging more diversity of gender in the work place for future generations.
This is something you need to consider. Does diversity in a workplace help? Is it an ideal you wish to work towards in the long run? If you think diversity is unimportant, and you rather wish to reduce current costs in searching for labour, then so be it.

I think a large part of policies deals with compromising people's present value vs. future value of a decision. It is why, we humans are floundering in solving problems in the world.

Re:Stop with this myopic bullshit!

[Belial6]

You are right that a long term view is needed. That is why biasing towards women is a bad plan. Today, people tell themselves that "We are just correcting historical bias". The problem is that you are just creating a new set of biases. In the long run, you are not fixing the problem, you are just shifting which group has the advantage. I see this all the time with my 9 year old son. Over the years we have had lots of events and programs that he would have loved to attend and would likely have learned a good deal from, but they were only being offered to girls. Frequently the events he does attend will include people running them that make subtle, (or sometimes not so subtle) digs against boys, implying that they are inherently bad or inferior. Just reading the comments on this article, you see adult men that have been trained to believe that somehow they don't deserve to be treated as an equal individual because they have a penis. The rhetoric against males has only snowballed in the the past two decades. The long term view says that you stop the pendulum from swinging. You don't just shove it in the other direction.

"identified a potential root cause", my ass

[anyaristow]

No, the problem is know-it all, under-socialized people who think their simplistic explanations are genius, and who think women "don't like intense thinking", and who moderate as troll anyone who calls out their misogyny.

People like this are intolerable for women to work with.

I sure hope you're not a doctor. Or a mechanic. Or an engineer. Or in IT. Or any field that requires solving problems for that matter.

Oh, no, someone thinks you and your like are under-socialized, misogynist, delusional dumbasses. However will you deal with that? That's right, you'll make a determination of my job-worthiness from two sentences I wrote.

Aren't you clever!

*You* are why women don't want to work in IT.

Re:"identified a potential root cause", my ass

[h4rr4r]

So you think women are incapable of dealing with adversity?
They are incapable of tolerating socially uncouth individuals to reach their life goals?

Who is the misogynist here?

Technical people choose where they work

[davide marney]

If you are in a technical field that requires a lot of time, effort (and sometimes money) to become proficient, then personal attributes like gender are generally meaningless. Is there any doubt that a person who is sufficiently smart and dedicated enough to become a crack developer can do so, regardless of gender?

Developing software is a huge enterprise, spanning hundreds of job categories and every human skill imaginable. No doubt if one were to include the full scope of work, then the balance of men to women would be the same as the working population as a whole; that is certainly the case where I work.

Sure, there are some disciplines where men are more concentrated, but also others where women are more concentrated, and still others where the split is more even. What does that matter? To deliver a great product, everyone must put their heart into pushing the wagon down the road, or it goes nowhere.

High profile jobs

[dutchwhizzman]

You always hear about women being underrepresented in high profile jobs. I never see campaigns to get more women into plumbing, road work, carpentry, mining and similar "men jobs". Until those jobs get an equal represented share in the campaigns to get more women doing mens' jobs and the campaign gives just as much attention to men doing "women jobs", I regard the campaigns as sexist biased. The only way to break these gender biased roles is to work on them all at the same time and give all of them the same kind of attention. Focusing on a specific small part will never work, unless it's part of a big campaign that works on all jobs in all levels.

Re:High profile jobs

[LordLucless]

You also see very little effort to address the gender imbalance in teaching, nursing or human relations (which are all female dominated).

Re:I'd love to see more women in tech, but...

[nine-times]

what I see reported as the biggest turn-off to most women is the perception that tech work, computer science in particular, is "geeky"

Sounds like the problem is that women are too smart to work in tech.

A different perspective.

[thesandtiger]

I'm a woman and I was recently doing a job search and interviewed at a dozen places before settling on one that I liked (and have since come to love).

It was, overall, a very uncomfortable experience for me. I was, at many of the places, subjected to comments along the lines of "I've worked with a female developer before, and it was really difficult because she didn't have a sense of humor/couldn't take a joke/made us feel like we had to be on our best behavior - would you be like that?" Seriously. I was repeatedly told that one concern was the rest of the team feeling like they might have to walk on eggshells around me.

When I heard these things I essentially shut down the interview and let them know I would not be interested. I explained that I appreciated their honesty, but the fact that they had concerns along those lines made me know it wasn't the place for me, and I thanked them for their time.

It isn't that I don't have a sense of humor, or that I'm easily offended - it's that I really don't want to have to be responsible for all women ever, and I don't want to have to worry that my co-workers are continually holding me accountable or interpreting things I say or do as if I were somehow the same as the other women they had worked with. And despite my shutting it down, I was *still* offered jobs at half the places.

The place that I liked - and have come to love - gender never came up during the interview. We talked about the tech, we talked about the work, we talked about the long term goals for the position, and we talked about the culture. The only time gender has come up was when one of my co-workers, who has a daughter, asked me how I came to get so interested in technology and science because he wanted to encourage his daughter as much as possible without pushing her.

Looking at the comments here, there's a whole lot of "othering" going on. A lot of comments that seem to treat women as members of some kind of hive mind wherein certain behaviors are just expected. This is completely unfair - it would be as unfair as me treating all men like rapists just because some men are. There's also a lot of anger I'm sensing from a lot of the guys - feeling like they're being discriminated against in some cases by quotas (real or imagined) or whatever. You guys are certainly entitled to your anger, just like I'm entitled to be bugged when idiots can't distinguish me from some other woman despite us being entirely different people.

The thing I would recommend to people - all people - is to take everyone you will be dealing with as an individual AS an individual. Just as you wouldn't want to be held responsible for things you had nothing to do with, so, too, other people don't want to be made responsible for everyone who shares their gender, race, ethnicity, or other arbitrary trait.

For the record, I think hiring quotas are stupid. Affirmative action is "good intention, wretched implementation." That said, the people saying they've been turned down for developer/in demand jobs because they are white/male/other majority class must be incredibly unimpressive candidates. If you were such hot shit that you "deserved" the job, you would have gotten the job. Businesses are in business to make MONEY, they will hire whomever will make them MONEY, and if you couldn't make it clear you would make them more MONEY than some other random person, that's on you.

Re:A different perspective.

[RussR42]

Well written and I agree. That didn't stop me from giggling a bit at your sig...

I don't want to have to worry that my co-workers are continually holding me accountable or interpreting things I say or do as if I were somehow the same as the other women they had worked with.

Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.

:)

Re:A different perspective.

[Ambassador Kosh]

It is sad but I can see the humor aspect part of the question. Most of the engineers I have been around make jokes about things like using the equipment to cook breakfast or wondering if the reactor could build up enough pressure to make a cool water gun etc. Most of the women I have known go upset at those jokes for some reason. I can understand not making sexual jokes since they don't really belong in the work place. However, if engineers can't make non-sexual jokes about the equipment it makes it very hard to bond with the team.

What I notice is teams try to hire people that will fit in with the rest of the team. A lot of men are also looked over because they would not fit in with the team and for engineers a sense of humor is pretty important. You even find a lot of actual solutions can come out of silly jokes. I have met many women who would fit in and many that would not. I would want to make that clear during the hiring process although I would have made it clear what type of humor I was referring to.

If you do work with a solar concentrator and have never though of cooking a marshmallow with it you should not be working with it. :)
If the idea of using your large CSTR to make fruit punch has never occurred to you please find another field.

Re:A different perspective.

[onyxruby]

First off, I find most of your comment the most intelligent one in this thread, in particular I agree that sex should simply never come up as an issue. On the point about the the affirmative action though I will have to disagree with you. In many government jobs, or jobs that relate to government (road construction etc) where affirmative action is required you happen to be wrong.

A couple of examples for you are when the Federal government setup the TSA. I was involved with the program from an IT standpoint as we had testing stations all over the US and territories. When the program first started we to hire an entire government agencies worth of people all at once and it was a massive logistical undertaking. We had hotels rented, nurses and doctors for physical exams, IT staff, security staff, the whole nine yards were on hand to run tests to hire enough people to hire the screeners. On average each temporary hiring center had between 30-60 temporary staff on hand.

We had to keep each center open until the appropriate quotas were filled for each airport. In some cases that meant we kept centers staffed for weeks or months in order to make sure we hired enough women for certain positions (supervisors etc). We actually had the same thing happen with men in Guam or American Samoa if I recall where the local culture was that only women worked in security.

You'll see the same thing happen with any number of other fields that relate to government in any number of other ways. In many of these cases affirmative action literally equals a quota and the more qualified white/male/other majority class will lose out on the job to the entirely unqualified candidate simply because they are trying to fill a given quota.

Re:A different perspective.

[thesandtiger]

I consider myself to be a feminist - actually, rather, a humanist. I think you're probably using the term "feminist" to mean something more akin to "feminazi" or "people who use the term feminist in order to justify treating men like shit."

I don't treat men like shit, nor do I think all men are rapists, so I can't answer to your statements of "feminists do this" because, in my experience, they do not, and I certainly don't.

Think about it in reverse - if I were to say "you're just like every other guy out there, you think all feminists are bad people blah blah blah" it would be stupid, right? Because not ALL guys make blanket statements about feminists like you just did. I can say YOU are making a poor argument because of your blanket statements, but it would be completely unfair of me to say that ALL of whatever term I want to apply to you (men's rights activist? I dunno) aren't capable of making a reasonable argument.

Personally, I think it sucks that ANYONE has to live in fear of another person being an asshole (and, you're really describing "assholes who happen to identify as feminists" rather than feminists), and I wish it were different, but alas, we live in this world, not fantasy land.

Re:A different perspective.

[thesandtiger]

I'm actually quite consistent: When there is some way to differentiate individuals, I treat them as individuals. When there is literally no way to differentiate individuals, I have no obligation to try and make any distinction.

As far as I know, you're the same person who called me a cunt in another post because you have chosen to post in such a way that I literally have no way of knowing otherwise. Shame on you for using such language!

Cry me a river.

[luis_a_espinal]

Did they not let women apply before?

This means if they get two similarly qualified candidates they will select a woman if their quota needs one. That means males who apply are being discriminated against.

As a man, I will say this to those "men" who feel discriminated or unfairly treated by that practice: Go to the Cry-Me-A-River Department and send us a violin-shaped postcard when you get there. Srlsly, man the f* up.

A little bit of social adjustment to achieve some fairness that has been conspicuously absent in the history of humankind will inevitably hit someone else. Bohoho, big deal. World is unfair, but it has always been more favorable to us men than to women. It doesn't take a lot of testicular fortitude to accept this fact graciously.

If a man gets passed in favor of an equally qualified woman, and said man cannot find another job in this male-predominant industry, then chances are there is something wrong with him.

It is absolutely pathetic to see men born and raised in one of the most prosperous nations in the history of mankind getting their panties all curled up because a company in a male-predominant, highly-paid industry decides to favor women in their hiring process. It speaks volumes about them, and that wasn't meant as a compliment.

Re:Cry me a river.

[meta-monkey]

I agree. Are men being "discriminated against" in these circumstances? Is it "unfair?" Maybe. But my father raised me to be a man, and one of his frequent lessons was "life isn't fair."

Part of being a man is accepting that life isn't fair. You have to shoulder responsibilities and make sacrifices that others do not. We do not complain that women and children get the lifeboats before we do. We do not complain about opening doors for women, or giving up our seats on busses so they can sit, or picking up the check. When the nutjob opened fire in the Colorado theater, many of the men (boys, even) died using their bodies to shield others. Those were Men.

This does not mean women are not ALLOWED to do these things. By all means, grab the check. By all means, fight for your country (my wife was in the Army for 9 years and carried her M-16 through Bosnia and Kosovo, helping protect the people there from each other). If you are a man who feels "threatened" by strong women, then you are not much of a man.

So men, do not whine about "discrimination." It's unmanly. Suck it up, find a better job, or make your own job. Women, what you choose to do is up to you. I hope you choose to compete as the best candidate for whatever position you apply. If you don't, and would prefer special treatment, that's fine. Ignore the crying whiners on their way out. They're not really men. And yes, I'll hold the door open for you.

Re:Cry me a river.

[meta-monkey]

Fine. If "life isn't fair" and women are equally human, they should be able to handle the same lessons the same way men have to.

You're flawed from your very first sentence.

You might have an argument if I'd said "life is fair" but I said the exact opposite. Your entire post is a non-sequitur.

Life is not fair. If you're expecting it to be, you're in for a rude awakening. I'd tell you to wish life were fair in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first, but I think you wouldn't bother, assuming they'd fill up equally.

Self Contradictory

[wisnoskij]

One of his rules: "Don’t use identifying language that might unintentionally marginalize minority candidates such as “women engineers”—-they’re just “engineers.”"
Which he then violates about 2 times for every single other rule, dozens more for the article, and again for his premise.

Sounds like just another, lets start taking gender into account when we are trying to fill a role, such that we get about a 50:50 ratio in our company.

so much for reading comprehension

[luis_a_espinal]

So what you are saying is that men who can't get a job are worthless people?

No. Nice strawman by the way. I'm talking about men worrying about not getting a job at the sight one (A SINGLE FUCKING ONE) single company slightly preferring women in a men-dominated industry, which, even in these economic conditions still provide ample opportunity for employment.

I'm not talking about men in general looking for jobs, in general, and not finding jobs, in general. But don't let that stop you from building a strawman to knock out and pat yourself in the back celebrating your victory, though.

That if a man can't get a job, he's obviously terrible at what he does?

No. See above.

If a man is unable to get a job, then he is pathetic?

No. See above.

It speaks volumes about a man because a company didn't hire him?

No. See above. But don't let reading comprehension stop you from building up your angst.

Re:I'd love to see more women in tech, but...

[Leslie43]

I know I will get crap for this and but here it is from a woman's perspective...

Women actually used to be a larger part of I.T. in general and classrooms at one time were on track to reach an expected 45%. Instead of climbing, those numbers are falling.

You can blame it on parents not giving girls tech toys, and yes that may be part of it, but considering how many female gamers there are (nearly half of gamers are female), that doesn't explain it completely. Remember, the average age of gamers these days (30's) have kids in high school and college, that means these kids likely grew up on video games. There is obvious interest, and there was an interest, they just don't have an interest in a career in those fields any longer.

So the real question is why don't they want a career in I.T.?
The answer is men. Male geeks as it turns out are quite sexist (and geeks develop a minor god complex to boot). E3 has a spectacularly bad reputation among women and there is/was an actually boycott because of repeatedly being groped, talked down to and generally treated bad. Look at how things are marketed there... Booth babes? How much more sexist can you get. Other tech trade shows aren't any better.

In online gaming, there are a TON of women playing games online, you guys act like they don't play FPS or anything hardcore, yes, we do, you just don't see them because most of them hide their gender. Xbox players are the worst, however even on PC, which is better it can still be pretty bad. Personally, I don't hide my gender, however I won't play before 8pm, and I won't play long unless it's with other friends. All it takes is one guys to ask "are you really a girl", and the entire game will change and go downhill. If it's not "you got killed by a girl", it's a guy trying to talk smack to me. If I stay quiet, he will get more aggressive as it goes, if I talk back, he will instantly go ballistic, there is no middle ground, it usually only stops if a 3rd person steps in, I leave or someone gets booted. Then your have the games themselves, IF there is a female character, her clothes get skimpier the more "armor" she gets... By the time she is "armored up" she looks more like a sex slave than a warrior. Which only reinforces the males view of women only being good for eye candy. Try playing as a girl for a week or more and you will begin to see what women really go through when playing online and you will begin to see why they hide.

This is why the classrooms are emptying out. I know not all guys are this way, and as they grow up they grow out of this (some more than others), however the worst of it happens right at the age where we are choosing our careers (teens). Why would a woman pick a career where she's not only objectified, she's verbally abused on a daily basis?