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://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.
---
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 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.
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]
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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