Yeah even in an America with unceasing culture wars and Netflix adaptations teaching people about the Cultural Revolution, “struggle sessions” just sound like such an archaic reference, like something from a Philip K. Dick novel.
It's a cultural issue at the end of the day. If people are mostly looking for degree holders, but only 20% of college programs are women, it shouldn't be a surprise if 20% of the workforce is women.
You can't really fix that with some DEI initiative at the workforce level. You gotta start deeper and foster it into the next generation. But people care so little about grade school teachers as is, so this is just wishful thinking.
>You can't really fix that with some DEI initiative at the workforce level
The article doesn't reference DEI at all. Instead, it presents the organization as one that provides support, networking and training for women in tech.
But, I'm not very familiar with this organization beyond the article. Was DEI also a major initiative of theirs?
> it presents the organization as one that provides support, networking and training for women in tech.
Yeah, but that's the point. I will note that DEI is more of a company thing, not a Women Who Code thing. They could encourage DEI initiatives, but it's the company's call.
This is targeted towards women who are already interested. They had some programs encouraging women to enter tech, but from what I looked into, this is (or, was) mostly targeting advanced high schoolers. By that 16-17 age, many people generally start to develop some passion already. Harder to mold than going way back to elementary and fostering them over grade school.
But that takes time, and corporations aren't thinking long term even for existing industry workers.
>. I will note that DEI is more of a company thing
OK, yeah that was my take. There just seemed to be a few posts explicitly or implicitly linking their work to DEI, which obviously has a connotation these days.
>mostly targeting advanced high schoolers. By that 16-17 age, many people generally start to develop some passion already
A surprising number of kids still have no idea what they want to do by this age and even fewer seem to have a passion.
Still, targeting young women who are already interested / entering the field also makes a lot of sense. Providing support needed to ensure their success helps to establish a foothold and perpetuate a virtuous cycle.
This is completely a cultural thing. Plenty of female engineers from Eastern European and Asian countries. I worked with a Romanian female nuclear physicist-turned dev who realized slinging JavaScript was far more lucrative than academia.
> Men are just inherently more interested in "things" while women are inherently more interested in "people",
Why do men keep saying this? If it were true, wouldn't women be more qualified to comment, what with them being so much more inherently interested in people? Why should I trust men with such an obviously baseless opinion?
Oh right, because that would be a wildly sexist stereotype! Wow, yeah, I shouldn't do that!
This post-hoc rationalization without nuance and stated without evidence is not helpful, and misleading.
- C-level execs and upper management are all about dealing with people. Why is it so male-dominated?
- In a traditionally patriarchal society, stereotypically, the men went out into society and socialized with each other, whereas the women were atomized and kept to child-rearing and household labor.
- Accounting has a balance of the genders. I don't see the people-orientedness as significantly different from engineering.
>Men are just inherently more interested in "things" while women are inherently more interested in "people"
This makes evolutionary sense too: Socializing with your peers as a would-be mother improves the chances you will have children and have them survive. Focusing on your productivity as a would-be father improves the chances your tribe and thus your children, if any, will survive.
Women who don't socialize won't have children, and men who are too unproductive will drag their tribe down and fail to find a mate.
> How about a promoting vision of tech where people who can actually code well instead of virtue signal are promoted
This vision is called the Peter Principle and has bad outcomes.
Also, "virtue signalling" is an essential part of leadership, also known as "setting an example", "defining culture", etc.
(I actually filed a bug at work recently that was fixed by a VP. This mostly annoyed me because 1. I don't know how to do a code review for a VP if it gets time consuming and 2. …doesn't he have something better to do?)
I was originally introduced to the term "virtue signalling" by the example of rich people choosing to wear Rolex watches and hating anyone who wore a fake Rolex far more than the merely looking down on people who wore a normal watch or no watch.
Rolex watches keep worse time than a Casio F-91W:
"""It’s accepted that a normal range of time lost for a watch is close to 3 minutes per month. If your watch is gaining time, the norm is around 6 additional minutes per month. If your Rolex falls within these specs, your watch is keeping time beautifully.""" - https://watchchest.com/journal/rolex-timekeeping-accuracy-ex...
When people use the phrase "virtue signalling" to indicate tribal identification, I think that itself is an act of "virtue signalling" in the sense they are using it; conversely for the usage I learned, it has to be a costly signal, something objectively bad value that you're showing off, because if you're doing a directly good thing (or too cheap to matter) then it's not a metaphorical peacock tail — which sports team you follow, that's not "virtue signalling" by itself, but getting into a punch-up over which team you're in, that would be.
I don’t understand how the example you discuss can be considered virtue signalling.
I was under the impression that virtue signalling was about projecting morals and ethics to make one look good. Greenwashing is one example of virtue signaling I’m aware of.
What virtue does “rich people wearing Rolexes hating on people who wear fake Rolexes even though are worse time keepers than a cheap Casio” demonstrate?
Accusations of virtue signaling, I've often observed, is most commonly employed by those who want to virtue signal their supposed superior sense of rationality and lack of bias, despite tacitly staking out moral positions of their own in order to make the accusation in the first place. It's all feigned neutrality and pretending to be above it all.
> How about a promoting vision of tech where people who can actually code well instead of virtue signal are promoted, whether they be male or female, instead of promoting this intersectional garbage?
I don't know, it probably has something to do with the fact that, despite a rich history of successful women in the industry, they are notoriously under-represented in leadership roles, continue to be passed over for promotion, and face cultural challenges all over the world. But don't take my word for it, go educate yourself?
You've been breaking the site guidelines quite a lot as well as using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do these things, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules, we'd appreciate it.
Depends on which country and state you are in. It also depends on the history of the company you work for, the reputation and history as presented by women working in your organization (present and past).
People talk, and if your company is known in public or private discussion groups as hostile to people, or advertises itself with a laundry list of red flag terms, you might not have much luck recruiting women.
The great thing is that there are lots of resources for companies who want to change the culture at their company and who can work to make your company more attractive to women and other under-represented communities!
>As if having male founders of all major firms is a thing to be avoided.
I don't think that's the intended read.
If women are 50% of the population, yet 0% are represented as leaders in a specific industry (which I don't think is completely true here, BTW), I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why. There must be a reason beyond sheer chance, and I think the real question being asked is whether it's an issue of opportunity or access.
So, why wouldn't we want to ensure that there are no issues with the playing field? Who does this hurt?
>promoting this intersectional garbage?
What is it, specifically, that bothers you so much about this?
