'Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women' says GitHub's diversity guru - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Thlis;49708870]I am not buying this anymore. It's not just random egotistical crazies when you have scientists getting harassed by a significant number of people over wearing a shirt. When you have the statement "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women" written without a hint of self awareness. There is a significant chunk of people now adays that believe that they cannot be racist/sexist because of their race or gender.[/QUOTE] I'm not denying that they're large in number, I'm refuting that radical feminism is a new thing replacing the old.

[QUOTE=Shugo;49704101]I've never been able to crack those people and understand why they think this way. It seems like such a logical rule to them, somehow. I always ask, then, if it's okay to discriminate against another group of people just because you're in the minority. It's either a "of course not, but it's still not racism" or a shocking "well yes, I think centuries of oppression has earned you the right in that case". I've seen far too many people respond with the latter, and I just don't get it.[/QUOTE] This. Also, being in a historically oppressed minority doesn't make you better than the majority or give you some moral high ground like a lot of people think it does. Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa. Being brown doesn't make you a saint. I'm not saying racism is a good thing, it isn't. But ALL groups of people are equally capable of being racist. Whites are no intrinsically more racist than other groups of people. And implying they are is, you guessed it, racist by definition.

[QUOTE=Thlis;49708870]I am not buying this anymore. It's not just random egotistical crazies when you have scientists getting harassed by a significant number of people over wearing a shirt. When you have the statement "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women" written without a hint of self awareness. There is a significant chunk of people now adays that believe that they cannot be racist/sexist because of their race or gender.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bread_Baron;49709390]I'm not denying that they're large in number, I'm refuting that radical feminism is a new thing replacing the old.[/QUOTE] There have always been plenty of batshit insane radical feminists, from TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) to Creationist Feminists to many of the original Suffragettes in the 19th century who used taglines like "we have the give white women the vote before the blacks get it!". Ultimately, like every large and vaguely defined sociopolitical movement, there are a huge range of people who subscribe to the label. I wouldn't want to paint a brush over all conservatives by comparing them all to Donald Trump supporters, for example.

[QUOTE=greendevil;49709854]Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa. Being brown doesn't make you a saint. I'm not saying racism is a good thing, it isn't. But ALL groups of people are equally capable of being racist. Whites are no intrinsically more racist than other groups of people. And implying they are is, you guessed it, racist by definition.[/QUOTE] Actually there probably wouldn't have been any slave trade at all, because slavery became obsolete in Europe way back in the middle ages, so Europe wouldn't have had any slaves to sell (outside of Andalusia). Most african nations still had slavery when the incentive for a slave trade arose, and even then the demand mostly came from colonies.

Diversity quotas and affirmative action are some things that will never cease to confuse me. They aren't beneficial to the company in the long run, they provide unfair advantages to people for completely hereditary reasons, and they cause lower skill people to take higher skill jobs because the company can't hire that white dude with those skills for the job because they'll get yelled at by some employee who somehow ended up in a position of power. What exactly is the point of them except for some white guilt shit? Or is that pretty much the only reason why they exist.

i got over the whole affirmative action thing. but now that one group thinks another is not deserving of its benefits i find it hard to support those people.

[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;49709390]I'm not denying that they're large in number, I'm refuting that radical feminism is a new thing replacing the old.[/QUOTE] Before they were a tiny speck, now they're a large brain tumor. Which were my point, since the bad apples are keeping those with pure intentions and rational arguments down. So the crazies are pretty much oppressing the sane and sensible now. Ironic...

[QUOTE=greendevil;49709854]This. Also, being in a historically oppressed minority doesn't make you better than the majority or give you some moral high ground like a lot of people think it does. Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa.[/QUOTE] White slaves [I]existed[/I] in Africa, there's no reason to use the conditional tense.

[QUOTE=Toro;49710129]Diversity quotas and affirmative action are some things that will never cease to confuse me. They aren't beneficial to the company in the long run, they provide unfair advantages to people for completely hereditary reasons, and they cause lower skill people to take higher skill jobs because the company can't hire that white dude with those skills for the job because they'll get yelled at by some employee who somehow ended up in a position of power. What exactly is the point of them except for some white guilt shit? Or is that pretty much the only reason why they exist.[/QUOTE] It's an easy solution and makes you feel good.

[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49706162]Incarceration rate is relatively proportional to crime rate. Statistics on a national level are somewhat sparse, but here's an [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-statistics-show-96-percent-shooting-victims-black-hispanic-minority-groups-represent-89-percent-murder-victims-article-1.1152838"]article[/URL] about statistics from the NYPD regarding crime and minority neighborhoods, which should give you an idea of the problem. This all, of course, has to do with socioeconomic position above all else. Income and education are closely tied to crime rate. The problem isn't that minorities are being discriminated against on a massive scale, it's that minority communities suffer from disproportionate crime rate due to lack of education and prosperity. And with no money to invest into education, the cycle continues forever.[/QUOTE] Statistics on a national level are sparse? Are you fucking with me? The UCR and NCVS are some of the best national crime stats in the world. We are shockingly good at national statistics, given our size and departmental variation. The UCR and NCVS both show wildly disproportionate incarceration of African Americans in particular. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49708219]Serious question about the idea of institutional racism for anyone knowledgeable: When people talk about institutional racism are they referring to institutional systems that unfairly target certain groups or are they referring to a system that leads to results that differ for certain groups? For example, let's say that asian people go into STEM fields more often because the culture they're raised in more strongly pushes education and educational work ethic. In this case, the system doesn't target asian people to try and get them into STEM fields, but the result is that asian people are overrepresented in those fields. Would that be considered institutional racism? It's important because statistical differences aren't nearly enough to reach the burden of proof for the first definition.[/QUOTE] They are referring to a system that blocks access to certain groups. So in your example, no. A greater number of Asians being encouraged to enter STEM fields from their families would in no way be institutional racism. An education system that strongly disfavored Asians in non-STEM fields, would likely be guilty of institutional racism. Like if they preferred to accept white students into something like Sociology over minorities.

[QUOTE=greendevil;49709854] [B]Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa.[/B] Being brown doesn't make you a saint. I'm not saying racism is a good thing, it isn't. But ALL groups of people are equally capable of being racist. Whites are no intrinsically more racist than other groups of people. And implying they are is, you guessed it, racist by definition.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade[/url]

[QUOTE=Toro;49710129]Diversity quotas and affirmative action are some things that will never cease to confuse me. They aren't beneficial to the company in the long run, they provide unfair advantages to people for completely hereditary reasons, and they cause lower skill people to take higher skill jobs because the company can't hire that white dude with those skills for the job because they'll get yelled at by some employee who somehow ended up in a position of power. What exactly is the point of them except for some white guilt shit? Or is that pretty much the only reason why they exist.[/QUOTE] There's ample evidence that things like hiring and university admissions are far from unbiased- a quick Google search will show you plenty of studies along the lines of submitting a job application but changing the name from a European name to an African name leading to a much lower hiring rate. It's not because the people doing admissions are evil racists and it's not that black people need a leg up because they're underqualified, it's just that everyone is biased due to factors out of their control, and everyone finds it harder to identify with people of a different cultural background. Affirmative action isn't meant to put underqualified applicants in important positions for the sake of diversity, it's meant to put in equally-qualified candidates who would otherwise be overlooked for unjust reasons or simple cultural differences. As to whether that works out in practice, well, I've seen compelling evidence to suggest that in many cases it doesn't work out as intended. I'm not a fan of affirmative action as a policy but it's certainly not a product of white guilt, there's a real issue here that ought to be addressed.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;49704930]From what I've read, the reasoning behind "Coloured Person" being bad and "Person of Colour" being good is the former puts their skin colour first, while the latter puts them being a person first.[/QUOTE] so wait, am i allowed to complain if someone calls me a male person or a white person

[QUOTE=catbarf;49712651]Affirmative action isn't meant to put underqualified applicants in important positions for the sake of diversity, it's meant to put in equally-qualified candidates who would otherwise be overlooked for unjust reasons or simple cultural differences.[/QUOTE] But people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds either [I]are[/I] less fit for the job or the amount of applicants that have the appropriate skills are less numerous, since they're from a socio-economic background that on average do more poorly due to a variety of reasons. As a result, enforcing quotas while ignoring that fact (ie quotas that enforce equal amount of people from every background/gender) discriminates against people who come from the majority. So even in theory, affirmative action is rubbish that does the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. No need to see it done in practice to know that.

[QUOTE=greendevil;49709854]This. Also, being in a historically oppressed minority doesn't make you better than the majority or give you some moral high ground like a lot of people think it does. [B]Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa.[/B] Being brown doesn't make you a saint. I'm not saying racism is a good thing, it isn't. But ALL groups of people are equally capable of being racist. Whites are no intrinsically more racist than other groups of people. And implying they are is, you guessed it, racist by definition.[/QUOTE] Slavery had nothing to do with industrialization. In fact, in 1834 as the industrial revolution started to kick off, the empire ended slavery and emancipated all slaves. Like others have said, there were white slaves used in Africa and in the Middle East long ago.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49712819]Slavery had nothing to do with industrialization. In fact, in 1834 as the industrial revolution started to kick off, the empire ended slavery and emancipated all slaves. Like others have said, there were white slaves used in Africa and in the Middle East long ago.[/QUOTE] He meant it would be widespread. And it had a lot to do with it, it's why Europe became such a powerhouse and completely dominated Africa.

I hope I'm not the only one who finds people like this to be the true racists and sexists.

[QUOTE=greendevil;49709854]This. Also, being in a historically oppressed minority doesn't make you better than the majority or give you some moral high ground like a lot of people think it does. Look at it this way, if Africa had industrialized before Europe there probably would have been white slaves in Africa. Being brown doesn't make you a saint. I'm not saying racism is a good thing, it isn't. But ALL groups of people are equally capable of being racist. Whites are no intrinsically more racist than other groups of people. And implying they are is, you guessed it, racist by definition.[/QUOTE] Your ignorance of the Ottoman Empire and Barbary slave trade is shameful. Hell, most of the slaves in the roman empire were slaves and serfdom is [I]basically slavery[/I].

[QUOTE=elowin;49713088]He meant it would be widespread. And it had a lot to do with it, it's why Europe became such a powerhouse and completely dominated Africa.[/QUOTE] Europe didn't become a powerhouse because of slaves. And taking Africans as slaves is an outcome of dominating Africa, and would not be a cause for why Europe dominated it. What's extra amusing about this is the fact that before Africa actually became dominated by Europeans in the late 19th century, slavery was abolished by the British Empire. Honestly don't know where you're getting these ideas from wth man

[QUOTE=Antlerp;49713341]Europe didn't become a powerhouse because of slaves. And taking Africans as slaves is an outcome of dominating Africa, and would not be a cause for why Europe dominated it. What's extra amusing about this is the fact that before Africa actually became dominated by Europeans in the late 19th century, slavery was abolished by the British Empire. Honestly don't know where you're getting these ideas from wth man[/QUOTE] same with the pro-black movement attributing america's rise in the 1800's to slavery. cotton and tobacco pickers didn't jump start the industrial north nor were they the driving factor behind western expansion.

The statement airing frustrations/placing the blame for many issues at the feet of the kind of people who consider themselves liberal, but then say that actually doing anything to change the status quo is "just too extreme' You know, they come around to "help you" with your issue and them hamfist it all up, and ignore what you actually need over cred-boosting themselves. [editline]10th February 2016[/editline] But it's also one of those phrases like "kill all men!" that is not going to be taken well or properly understood outside a specific group. It just should not have been stated in this way. (and for the uninitiated, "kill all men" doesn't literally mean that, it's just another expression of hopeless frustration) ((it actually does mean literally that))

At the school I'm at, my computer program class is like 99% male. The dental assistance course down the hall is 99% female. If there's no girls in the industry, it's because they don't want to be here. These people need to stop making up problems out of thin air by pulling statistics out of their asses.

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;49714529]At the school I'm at, my computer program class is like 99% male. The dental assistance course down the hall is 99% female. If there's no girls in the industry, it's because they don't want to be here. These people need to stop making up problems out of thin air by pulling statistics out of their asses.[/QUOTE] "no girls no wanty" is super lazy and a total cop-out. The weirdly excessive divide between the genders in various fields is an interesting social problem (before any of you jump on me for using the word problem, it's being used in the analytical sense, not the "this is 100% bad all the time" sense). Why does this gap exist? What causes the genders to generally gravitate to certain fields? Most of the fields we use in examples have quite literally no gender specific requirements after all (anybody can program, anybody could become a nurse, anybody could drive a truck, etc.). We should be striving to work out what drives these decisions, is it some sociological effect (gender roles and the like). Or is there some biological want to be a nurse or programmer over a programmer or nurse respectively (honestly this would be utterly confusing). The computing sciences are an somewhat decent place to start looking at this shit as a fair few of the first programmers were women, and were held in somewhat high regard for that considering the time period (well okay, they were also mostly aristocracy). The shift to it being male dominated is somewhat recent.

[QUOTE=Talishmar;49704234]Women used to be banned from working in coal mines, but feminists campaigned against that and changed that. Proves at least they're not a hivemind and you're more likely to hear about outrageous things like these.[/QUOTE] Mind you - mining is actually one of the more lucrative jobs. It's physically and emotionally taxing as hell, fairly dangerous to boot. But one of the best paying.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49715672]"no girls no wanty" is super lazy and a total cop-out. The weirdly excessive divide between the genders in various fields is an interesting social problem (before any of you jump on me for using the word problem, it's being used in the analytical sense, not the "this is 100% bad all the time" sense). Why does this gap exist? What causes the genders to generally gravitate to certain fields? Most of the fields we use in examples have quite literally no gender specific requirements after all (anybody can program, anybody could become a nurse, anybody could drive a truck, etc.). We should be striving to work out what drives these decisions, is it some sociological effect (gender roles and the like). Or is there some biological want to be a nurse or programmer over a programmer or nurse respectively (honestly this would be utterly confusing). The computing sciences are an somewhat decent place to start looking at this shit as a fair few of the first programmers were women, and were held in somewhat high regard for that considering the time period (well okay, they were also mostly aristocracy). The shift to it being male dominated is somewhat recent.[/QUOTE] Pure speculation on my end, but I imagine people who don't want to join a job field, any field, aren't typically interested in either it's work itself, the work volume, or the work environment. The tech industry, AFAIK, is a very intense industry. Nursing is as well, but it's also usually unionized so the workers aren't as readily overworked. Between those two fields, I wouldn't say it's a gendered career choice that's the issue, it's what those jobs end game represent to the worker. i think young job seekers have different end goals than we used to, which may be stopping people(like myself) from even wanting to be part of that world.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49713264]Your ignorance of the Ottoman Empire and Barbary slave trade is shameful. Hell, most of the slaves in the roman empire were slaves and serfdom is [I]basically slavery[/I].[/QUOTE] I never said there were never any white slaves in Africa. I guess more than slavery my point was that the complete economic and political domination of Africa by Europe during the Industrial Revolution (which is a good part of the reason behind a lot of current race relation problems in the West) could easily have happened the other way around if the Africans had developed advanced weaponry or had the organizational level Europe did at the time. Western Europe could easily be a third world region right now with African countries facing the same racial problems as the US but in reverse if a few historical events had fallen out differently. White people aren't sociopaths and "minorities" don't have a moral get out of jail free card. That's all I'm saying.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49715672]"no girls no wanty" is super lazy and a total cop-out. The weirdly excessive divide between the genders in various fields is an interesting social problem (before any of you jump on me for using the word problem, it's being used in the analytical sense, not the "this is 100% bad all the time" sense). Why does this gap exist? What causes the genders to generally gravitate to certain fields? Most of the fields we use in examples have quite literally no gender specific requirements after all (anybody can program, anybody could become a nurse, anybody could drive a truck, etc.). We should be striving to work out what drives these decisions, is it some sociological effect (gender roles and the like). Or is there some biological want to be a nurse or programmer over a programmer or nurse respectively (honestly this would be utterly confusing). The computing sciences are an somewhat decent place to start looking at this shit as a fair few of the first programmers were women, and were held in somewhat high regard for that considering the time period (well okay, they were also mostly aristocracy). The shift to it being male dominated is somewhat recent.[/QUOTE] [quote]honestly this would be utterly confusing[/quote] I don't really think why you'd find it to be confusing. It makes sense that one gender would naturally have a more nurturing tenancy than another, you can see this through the entire animal kingdom. Really though, you're overall right. This is a social issue. That's the thing, though- it's not being treated like one. It's being treated like a corporate issue. We need to focus on positively reinforcing the idea that math and programming and STEM fields are legitimate career paths for women at a young age NOT by forcing universities and companies to take on more women, causing sexism in lashback; rather, we should have programs that target female youth that show them that it's okay to be interested in these things.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49715672] The weirdly excessive divide between the genders in various fields is an interesting social problem (before any of you jump on me for using the word problem, it's being used in the analytical sense, not the "this is 100% bad all the time" sense).[/QUOTE] Social phenomena is the word you're looking for, not problem. [QUOTE=hexpunK;49715672] We should be striving to work out what drives these decisions, is it some sociological effect (gender roles and the like). Or is there some biological want to be a nurse or programmer over a programmer or nurse respectively (honestly this would be utterly confusing).[/QUOTE] We could if people would stop hand waving every argument with buzzwords and statements like "It's in your head".

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49716443]Social phenomena is the word you're looking for, not problem.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, much better wording actually. I knew there was something more fitting but it just wouldn't come to me at the time. Thanks. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;49716404]I don't really think why you'd find it to be confusing. It makes sense that one gender would naturally have a more nurturing tenancy than another, you can see this through the entire animal kingdom. Really though, you're overall right. This is a social issue. That's the thing, though- it's not being treated like one. It's being treated like a corporate issue. We need to focus on positively reinforcing the idea that math and programming and STEM fields are legitimate career paths for women at a young age NOT by forcing universities and companies to take on more women, causing sexism in lashback; rather, we should have programs that target female youth that show them that it's okay to be interested in these things.[/QUOTE] Even then, we've managed to shed a lot of our "primal" instincts in favour of society. Fields such as the sciences don't really have much of a reason to be heavily skewed in one direction or another. There's little from nature that should impact that, humans are natural problem solvers and explorers in general, not just one gender. It's why we're where we are after all. The corporate issue side of this is mostly an exposure thing. For so long we've kinda relegated women to the house and shit like that, minorities to the manual labour and ghettos, etc. It can be hard to convince the people in charge who likely have some kind of bias (concious or not, someone has already brought up the "black name vs. white name" study that was performed) to hire a minority because of that bias. By requesting that in the case a minority is just as fit for the job as a majority, you should prefer the minority, they can generate exposure and proof that the minorities are just as capable at the job despite any biases you had. There has been an massive increase in programs that focus on computing for women and younger girls recently I've noticed. And that along with media coverage of women actually doing well in the industry finally has seemingly created a tiny surge in the number of women taking computing courses at university level. It's still massively skewed towards a mostly male studentship, but there has been a change. You need the social programs to actually get interest in the field, but I think you do need some form of assisted exposure to then convince people stuck in their ways to hire this new blood and help prove that they are capable of doing the job.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49716451] You need the social programs to actually get interest in the field, but I think you do need some form of assisted exposure to then convince people stuck in their ways to hire this new blood and help prove that they are capable of doing the job.[/QUOTE] You do have somewhat of a point, but I'm inclined to disagree. While it is important that we discourage companies from discriminating based upon race, I feel like affirmative action is absolutely 100% the wrong way to do it for reasons I've previously stated. It actively breeds racism, sexism, all that fun stuff because you get less qualified people in the position and then you can easily react "well wow whoop de doo look at the fucking [I]woman[/I] we hired fucking up" because they had to hire her to meet a diversity quota. My white male friends have had a very difficult time getting into some positions that they are obviously qualified for because the positions are so white-impacted because, who'da thunk it, we live in a primarily white country. When you force a 50/50 split of men to women in a field where the actual interest is 80/20, you end up with 30% of the males getting degrees flipping burgers and not actually contributing because they had to make way for that 20%. Obviously it isn't quite as extreme as this in the real world, but it's the same concepts at play.