Absolutely.

It's not a hard argument to make that women (and many other underrepresented people) are subjected to a stricter filter in the tech world, playing with a deck socially and structurally stacked against them. It's no surprise at all that people who can find success despite playing on a harder difficulty level will be among the most capable. An article like this is actually heartening, as it indicates that achievement and ability are internally recognized.

And now I've broken one of my cardinal rules (don't engage with social flamewar threads on HN), but you're exactly right - many of these comments are too embarrasing to let pass.

edit: calex just made this point far better than I in another comment in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12687015

The whole equality story was, at the beginning, "If there's more men passing one stage (IQ tests, high school diploma or promotion), then it's biased against women.

Then suddenly when women are promoted more often than men, your story becomes "Women are just smarter than men, it's normal". Can't you just have a little compassion for men who didn't have the skills and deserve to be pushed and taught a little bit? And the prejudice about "men are stupid" is repeated in many innocent settings:

- https://snag.gy/qDceHS.jpg

- https://pics.onsizzle.com/i-wish-i-was-strong-like-him-i-wis...

- Everyone can cite 10 qualities of women, especially smartness [1].

- You can't quote any quality attributed to men. There's none, no quality attributed to men in any newspaper, in any document, in any culture. "What about muscles?" The thing about muscles is, women reckon we have strength because it would be hard to deny it and it helps construct the idea that we're violent. But muscles also help build the image of men being stupid, and it doesn't give us a skill.

This prejudice does have real-world effects:

- Men are twice more likely to be homeless or to fail their studies,

- Men are 30 times more likely to land in prison.

THIRTY times! But somehow, women succeed to capture all the work we do for equality.

The fact you're unconscious about male difficulties shows how much work there's left to do about male equality. The progress we've made for women about equality of chances and freedom of pursuing good jobs, we now need to make it for men too. Since you're talking about politics, the fact that the only way to "vote for men equality" is to vote for Trump is a horrible abomination: I want equality, I'm keen to vote for a woman, but if that means that she'll do even more to accentuate the "privileged path" for women and accentuate messages breeding hate between women and men, then you're asking a voter to make... a dangerous choice.

[1] Qualities that are generally attributed to women: "Women are better at multitasking" – where scientific studies are much more gray-area than that; "Women are better at communication" – where in fact it's males who are handicapped about communication and who deserve some equality budget for "education to communication" and "education to feelings"; "Women are better at tastes and decoration" which harms the participation of many interested men in decoration topics; "Women are more mature, earlier" when in fact this maturity is judged on a biased set of responsabilities; "Women are better at raising children" which creates unprecedented disadvantages for men who want the custody of their child, and finally, "Women are better at school" when in fact it's teacher bias which gives them better marks ( http://www.bbc.com/news/education-32302022 ) – As you can see I'm very well documented on every quality which is theoretically attributed to women and where, in fact, it's just that many papers are unfairly condescending towards men.

Edit: your comment has been edited extensively, so I'm responding to whatever it was at the point in time I started typing.

---

To put this very dispassionately, filtering more aggressively reduces both total count and false positives (if the filter shares any correlation with success). The population subjected to the stricter filter will have a higher percentage of people who are deserving of promotion.

This would be true even if we limited our entire workforce to ivy league white men and then applied an additional filter to a random subset of them. If the filter correlates, the subset will outperform. I don't mean to say this is the only thing impacting who works where and how successful they are, but it is certainly present.

You're responding to an argument that I didn't make. The global population statements about which gender is "smarter" are your own.

Regarding Trump (I'm pretty sure I didn't bring this up, either), his recent exhibit of repeatedly mentioning that he was being shortchanged on time during the debate while actually having (negligibly) more time to speak (~40min vs ~39min) is a perfect illustration of the “prejudice” you're describing. When used to a privileged position, equality feels like bias.

(Debate time to speak, pick your source: https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+clinton+time+to+speak)

> You're responding to an argument that I didn't make.

You're correct, I answered to both parents in one comment, and found it useful to put my comment under yours because you had a very common objection, although I forgot to address it.

Concerning the "filter" story, how do you know girls just aren't just less interested in programming? Example that may be the norm: I've tried many times to get my god-daughter interested in computers, but the computer/tablet/phone/electricity/mechanics/woodworks/Mythbusters thingy really doesn't raise any interest or even bare curiosity. She just does it because she loves spending time with me, but remembers nothing.

If there were a genetic or social construct that made that fewer girls identify with programming, then it would kill the argument that "due to filtering, women are better" and reinforce the argument that "Women are promoted, not because they're better, but because companies are required to promote women".

And in fact, studies have demonstrated that fewer girls are interested in programming because of society.

> And in fact, studies have demonstrated that fewer girls are interested in programming because of society.

I agree! But why? And when? And is it just girls? The filter I'm talking about extends far beyond and is applied far earlier than the job interview, or the application to college, or which classes someone takes in high school. The paths laid out for all of us have varying degrees of difficulty, and shape how we grow.

Speaking as a white male from California who grew up with a computer in the house, in many ways my own career in tech is the path of least resistance. Sure, I've worked hard and chose to invest myself in these skills and this career, but the impediments to doing so were much, much less significant than the social and structural biases that people with other backgrounds run into at every. single. step.

Simply recognizing that I got to shoot for the hoop from a few feet closer than the rest of the population has given me a great respect for those who made the same shot from farther out. It's not that an individual like myself (like you?) with an advantaged position couldn't overcome the same challenges, we simply have not been tested in the same ways. I don't mean to speak for you as an individual, only that over a large enough group you're going to see a lot more people make it who got to take the easier shot.

I think our fundamental disagreement is that you're saying people like me (perhaps us?) don't actually get that easier shot. And that I simply do not believe, because of my experience in and observation of this industry, and because of the near-endless supply of evidence to the same. [citation needed: plenty in this thread, and every thread like it]

No, that's not our disagreement. Our disagreement is that if fewer women want to get into programming, then they're not being discriminated against. They are free and just didn't choose programming.

It could be a social construct of genders where male babies are exposed to other things than female babies, it wouldn't matter. The girl (e.g. my god-daughter) who likes chemistry goes into chemistry and is not being "discriminated against because she didn't go into programming". And your argument is in the same family that says there should be 50% women in programming because there's 50% females at birth.

You're also focussed on demonstrating that men get an easier shot. But if women who want to do programming can do it with no more barriers than men, then no-one is being discriminated against. And in fact, today, if a girl takes programming, she'll have a better career than men, because we promote women. There are countless stories that "women are harassed in IT", but they are all anecdotal and match with the global story told to girls since birth: "You're a victim, and you should spend your whole life finding occurrences where you can prove that you're a victim". It's not a tin-hat stuff I've invented, it's what, for example, the brand Always teaches to little girls with the #LikeAGirl video.

To come back to stories about girls being harassed: Is there a scientific experiement that we could do to prove that women really have a harder time than men, when we include sexual harassment of course, but also include when a weak male like me have been victims of some alpha manager, and include stories of men being fired because a woman doesn't like them (And I have live examples such as: Douglas Crockford, the PyCon conference story, the GitHub ceos, the GitHub's white males who've been fired, and two colleagues from my Australian company)?

All in all, I see women promoted all the time, I see women receiving a warm welcome in every team, I see many males being extra carful about including women, I see many downvotes and condemnation when someone posts a sexist remark on HN, I see corporate help to ensure women are untouchable and promoted: Not to paint the real world with rainbows, but I won't just buy into a story of a few women saying "You can't learn programming when you're a girl".

I also receive 20-50 upvotes when I remind people that women need to work too, so the feeling that women are too unfairly advantaged before they're really competent seems to be a common resentment across the community. Just try to think about what we'd do if we wanted peace. We certainly wouldn't try to accentuate victimization so much, and wouldn't try to have different paths for men and women (hard lonely work with no help for men who'll stay programmers, little programming but a lots of socializing and girls-in-web groups for women who'll become managers). And we certainly wouldn't have the following video, which is both dishonest towards men and an incitation to hate for female viewers:

https://youtu.be/VhB3l1gCz2E

Unity, peace and solidarity is something we build together, unless it's not unity, peace or solidarity that we want. And women certainly aren't currently working for that.

Only recruiters can confirm but the filter for women, at least to get interviews, is often times lower than for men.

Companies can't legally discriminate against men, but they can (and many do) post up at women engineer conferences and give interviews out like candy to people from that conference. They're discriminating based on where they source the resume from. The source just happens to be made up of all females. That's what Grace Hopper is for.

I generally agree, but what I can't explain is: if it really is because they are better because of this stricter filter, I would expect the stricter filter to apply to the promotion process too.

So, why isn't it?

Edit: maybe it's a sign of things getting "better". Women already working are on average better at what they do, and as people become more aware of the problem it's easier for them to become promoted because the filter isn't as strict when compared to X years ago.

It is also easier to show actual results at the promotion stage.

At the hiring stage, it is mostly a crapshoot, and they don't really know if you are good or not, so it is easier for biases to get in the way.

I thought a similar thing when I read this. Somewhat sad, but my first thought was that the second we near parity with the discrepancy between wage and representation between genders in IT/Engineering you'll see claims of "reverse" sexism. Then I read the discussion here.

Oh c'mon. Instead of being embarrassed at least try to understand the point. It's a fact that women are preferred for promotion in many places just because they are women because of affrimative action often called "striving for diversity". It's also a fact many men feel they are discriminated against in such settings.

It doesn't mean there aren't problems and discrimination against women but you act like his point is not valid and not even worth acknowledging. You just feel "embarrassed". You should feel that way but not because of the comment but because your attitude.

I understood tajen's point very well. He has provided a few personal anecdotes, and from there he extrapolates that an entire generation of men has been "sacrificed". He then goes on to claim that "women are equal in the minds of most men."

This, despite the fact that, per the very article we're discussing, 94% of senior devs are men, 92% of IT managers are men, and 93% of the heads of IT are men. This, despite the fact that studies continue to show that simply changing the name on a resume from a man's to a woman's has significant negative effects.

None of tajen's ridiculous assertions are supported by any evidence whatsoever. It's hyperbolic unsubstantiated fear-mongering in an attempt to minimize another group's problems while magnifying his own. He has to resort to such tactics, otherwise women's problems will be treated with greater urgency than men's (as they should be). I was embarrassed to see these comments at the top of HN, and I'm happy that people have since come to their senses and downvoted them to where they belong.

> This, despite the fact that, per the very article we're discussing, 94% of senior devs are men, 92% of IT managers are men, and 93% of the heads of IT are men.

Yep. It's not incompatible. Maybe most women don't want to spend their life in front of a computer. Maybe, as Margeritte Yourcenar used to mention, being a head of IT is a shit life and women are more clever than men in not trying to get so high. Maybe if you start with an all-male community and overpromote women, then 10 years is still not enough to become head of IT. Those numbers are little proof of discrimination. We need to know the mean-time-to-promotion.

> This, despite the fact that studies continue to show that simply changing the name on a resume from a man's to a woman's has significant negative effects.

This is a much more serious offense, and straight illegal in any developed economy (I hope). But if I had to hire a woman in my company, I'd be very afraid that hiring a woman leads to an (unwarranted) harassment accusation against the CEO like it so often did (GitHub and so many others, I'm looking at you), so I'd probably weigh whether it's worth sticking with a discrimination lawsuit risk. I'd probaboy still hire the woman, though, for ethics. But I would probably keep her in a separate room from me, just to dodge sexual harassment claims. What a f'cked world we live in. Can't even have a normal behaviour with women.

> None of taken's ridiculous assertions are supported by any evidence whatsoever.

Thank you for the insult, which tells a lot about the soundness of your personality. My evidence is:

- Around me, I see women be promoted, it's a pretty strong fact,

- OP's study says women are promoted faster than men, so it corroborates my supposedly "magnified own problems" (If men aren't allowed to have problems, wtf),

- There are laws that require companies to promote women as much as men and to reach quotas of managers.

- ...along with the dozen other comments with factual references and links I've posted today.

My position is very well documented because of people like you, and you're welcome if you want to discuss facts. On the other hand, if a rational reasoning triggers so much of your emotions, then it means you're associating my position with macho personalities like Trump, fascists or racists, and that means you're making a generalization about me. Did you know that generalizations trump the acurate perception? I'm much more in favour of women's rights than you think – I just can't stand the men-disparaging that we repeat over and over.

> Yep. It's not incompatible. Maybe most women don't want to spend their life in front of a computer. Maybe, as Margeritte Yourcenar used to mention, being a head of IT is a shit life and women are more clever than men in not trying to get so high.

Maybe women want to be at the bottom of the workplace totem poll? Are you seriously going to begin your hypothesizing there? Every single racist from the past said, "I've met plenty of coloreds and they're happy being slaves/segregated/living in ghettos!" It is absolutely ridiculous to begin there while discrimination is still looming large.

> Maybe if you start with an all-male community and overpromote women, then 10 years is still not enough to become head of IT. Those numbers are little proof of discrimination. We need to know the mean-time-to-promotion.

I never claimed these numbers alone are proof of discrimination. The discrimination has been proven in other ways, and these numbers simply highlight how effective it's been.

> Thank you for the insult, which tells a lot about the soundness of your personality. My evidence is:

Readers, note that I attacked his evidence, and his response is to attack my personality.

> - Around me, I see women be promoted, it's a pretty strong fact,

Strong fact? Your anecdotal evidence is worth zero. Around me I see <1% Trump voters. Doesn't change the fact that he has 43% of the nation's vote.

> - OP's study says women are promoted faster than men, so it corroborates my supposedly "magnified own problems" (If men aren't allowed to have problems, wtf),

Numerous people in this thread (and elsewhere, e.g. pg) have produced competing hypotheses for why women might be getting promoted faster. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore their reasoning, I suppose I can't stop you. It makes you look sexist, though, and it's why I and many others were embarrassed to see your comment.

> My position is very well documented because of people like you, and you're welcome if you want to discuss facts. On the other hand, if a rational reasoning triggers so much of your emotions, then it means you're associating my position with macho personalities like Trump, fascists or racists, and that means you're making a generalization about me. Did you know that generalizations trump the acurate perception? I'm much more in favour of women's rights than you think – I just can't stand the men-disparaging that we repeat over and over.

Rational reasoning? I'm not the one who needs to resort to ridiculous hyperboles to make my point. You speak of a generation of men being sacrificed, but there's no solid evidence to show that we're doing worse than women (quite the opposite). You speak of sexism being dead, but evidence shows women are still discriminated against in the workplace. You've completely failed to defend either of the claims I attacked.

I don't hate you, I don't hate myself, I don't hate men, and I don't hate women. I see plenty of great qualities in men (strong, assertive, spatially and mathematically intelligent, logical, emotionally stable, sexually expressive, loyal, etc), but to be honest, I would prefer to be treated as an individual than to be stereotyped and labeled in such ways.

It sucks that you've had it so rough. I don't doubt that the women in your particular life may have had unfair advantages in many ways. That's frustrating. I might be pissed, too. I also have a friend with an ex-wife who controls his kid, and it's infuriating. But cheer up. You have plenty to live for, and the world's not as bad as it may seem.

To be fair, women anecdotes about how they have been supposedly oppressed are frequently upvoted.

It appears that you are more opposed to his stance on the issue.

Could you link to a statistic showing women get hired less? How do you know they are not simply applying less?

Specifically, we're better than allowing anecdotes to masquerade as data, even when we feel vague discomfort coming from the general direction of the issue being discussed.

As a man, I am embarrassed that you can't see the point he was making.

It's not that "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!", he was just pointing out that promoting women because they have a vagina is just as bad as promoting someone because they have a penis or white skin.

Why not promote how well you do your job?

And there you go, immediately assuming that women are only promoted for being women.

Wow! Did you even read my comment? I was saying that opposite of that!

So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill? If so, I don't see it, and apparently neither does anyone else.

> So your comment says that women are currently being promoted due to skill?

That statistically can not be the case, right?

There are about 50/50 men women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals.

So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women.

Right?

I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?

#1: I don't believe the genders are the same in every way but genitals. There are lots of other physiological and psychological differences, so I've never bought the argument that every industry should have a perfect 50-50 representation. It wouldn't be surprising to me if there was some intrinsic advantage (either environmental or biological) women had over men as managers.

#2: In a system in which women are discriminated against, it takes extra grit for women to push through, get hired, and do the work anyway. These are women who really want it very badly. The cream of the crop. Therefore it's not surprising to see them perform better than their male peers on average.

#3: In a system in which women have historically been discriminated against, there will be lots of men with jobs they don't deserve. When women begin to enter the workforce in greater numbers, these men will be the first to lose their jobs to rising women.

I could go on. There are plenty of reasons why women might be getting promoted faster. One should not immediately jump to the conclusion that it's solely due to affirmative action quotas with no evidence to back that up. The world is more complex than that.

So it's not "Wimmin' are takin' our jerbs!" it's "Women are taking our jobs." Seriously, I don't see the distinction being made here.

How about this distinction?

If favoritism (or some sort of -ism) is/was responsible for all of men's achievements or stations -- isn't the converse true?

Doesn't that mean that if women rise through the ranks faster than men, that there is preferential treatment?

Otherwise, you would pretty much have to say that men and women are different on some fundamental intellectual level. Is that what you are saying?

Or are you just saying that preferential treatment is ok, just if it is your preference that is being treated?

I don't think favoritism is responsible for all of men's achievements or actions? I don't see how that's even relevant?

You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women (rather than men), and that that is unjust. I don't see the difference between that statement and the idea that women are "taking" (i.e., unjustly acquiring) jobs (which would otherwise have been men's.)

> You were suggesting in the top comment that women are being given jobs because they are women

I did not.

However, since you bring it up, women statistically can not move up the ranks faster than men, right?

There are about 50/50 men/women in the country. They are the same in every way but genitals.

So about half of those rising through the ranks should be men and about half women. Right?

I mean this is literally the argument that sexism explains our current workforce distribution, so I presume the argument holds the other way around?

I am suggesting that "we should hire more women" is every bit as sexist as "we should hire more men".

If you want to get rid of all -isms, why not do blind hires based on resume/testing (weighted some way)?

So you have a problem with saying "we should hire more women," but you don't have a problem with women being given jobs because they are women? I am literally just confused. Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not?

> I am literally just confused

Yes you are. You have completely confused everything I have written, even though I thought it was in plain English.

> Do you think women are being given jobs that should have gone to men in a fair world or not?

I think people should hire blindly using blind job tests and weighted experience/education. That would get rid of all "-isms".

I imagine that people would still find something to bitch about, though.

Do you think that women are taking men's jobs?