A girl who codes: Why that matters.(ckl.io)

over 2 years ago from Marcella Fontes, CheesecakeLabs

  • Rakesh KRakesh K, over 2 years ago

    I expressed the same thought when everybody were voicing for gender diversity on Women's day https://twitter.com/rakeshdesign/status/839462310318002177

    6 points
    • Wil NicholsWil Nichols, over 2 years ago

      wow you're terrible

      5 points
      • Connor NorvellConnor Norvell, over 2 years ago

        Which part is terrible? honest question, which part are you referring too? The argument that women should be hired, just because we need to be more diverse, is a little more than insulting to women.

        6 points
        • Wil NicholsWil Nichols, over 2 years ago

          The part where he ignores the original problem and asks a leading question in order to derail the conversation and detract legitimacy from the existing contributions.

          Of course recruiters are going to weight skillset, qualifications, etc. This argument does not obligate anyone to hire an unskilled workforce — which his tweet falsely asserts as the original argument.

          2 points
          • Connor NorvellConnor Norvell, over 2 years ago

            It wasn't necessarily his original argument. Gender diversity shouldn't be factored into agency selection... hiring the best human for the job should. Irrelevant of gender, sex, race, religion, etc.

            I think the broader point Rakesh was trying to make (I will admit he failed somewhat) is that hiring for the sake of diversity just causes agencies to hire "token" women, and "token" African-American employees so they look better. Which is not only offensive, its also not a solution.

            Andy's second argument explains this:

            Rakesh: Thanks. My question: for example, when only 18% of women graduate in CS why should we aim for 50% of the recruited to be women?

            Andy: because it's the right thing to do.

            His argument turned into: Hire women because diversity. which isn't a good solution to this problem.

            But then again, twitter had never really been a place for long form, and civil, debates.

            4 points
            • Wil NicholsWil Nichols, over 2 years ago

              Exactly — Twitter is by nature reductive, and that was his only contribution to this thread, which could have invited reasonable comments.

              I disagree that "hiring for the sake of diversity just causes agencies to hire 'token' women, and 'token' African-American" — prove that this is a problem, beyond the quality of his argument on Twitter.

              0 points
              • Account deleted over 2 years ago

                Because if you hire someone based on their race to fill quotas then you are just doing it to have your 'token' race members, not the best team members.

                0 points
                • Wil NicholsWil Nichols, over 2 years ago

                  Again, show me that this actually happens. Find one person who a team that cares only for quotas.

                  0 points
                  • Account deleted over 2 years ago

                    You're missing the point. If this kind of thinking becomes institutionalised, then this will be the outcome.

                    1 point
                    • Wil NicholsWil Nichols, over 2 years ago

                      ... and you're justified in assuming this will inevitably happen? I'm not hearing an argument; I'm loosely hearing an unproven worst-case.

                      0 points
                      • Account deleted over 2 years ago

                        ... and you're justified in assuming this won't inevitably happen? I'm not hearing an argument; I'm loosely hearing an unproven best-case.

                        0 points
    • Lindsay Hook, over 2 years ago

      It is definitely most important to hire qualified candidates vs. just meeting a quota. However, that is kind of beside the point. It's not 'should we hire more women just because they aren't represented', its more of 'are we making our best effort to make sure women are getting the best chance to be hired, in an equal manner to men'. There are lots of unconscious biases, social norms, and external pressures that can play into hiring – and this is different from person to person. Because tech industries are generally led by men, there could be a subconscious desire to hire people 'like themselves' which doesn't always mean sexism.

      As an obvious statement: as men, it is inherent that you cannot understand a women's perspective. Therefore to "eyeroll" at the women's march, or just not believe in the need for such things is silly because as men, you aren't subject to the experiences an average women goes through in her lifetime.

      But besides the point, I'm upset that the few women commenting on here have been generally hostile. I have found that 99% of the commenters are insightful/intellectual and willing to be proven wrong or just looking for more information. I thank you guys for being open to a discussion. As women, however we are generally met with a lot of aggression (esp. on the internet) and a general disbelief that we have anything to complain about. So that's probably the reason some women are quick to fight back with aggressive remarks.

      5 points
      • Jake Lazaroff, over 2 years ago

        But besides the point, I'm upset that the few women commenting on here have been generally hostile.

        Maybe they're just fed up with our shit.

        Many of the men here have been generally hostile solely because someone pointed out their privilege. I'm upset about that.

        2 points