Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

BaalHammonBePraised t1_j5flisd wrote

Why do you guys from the USA involve race in so many things? Its an unhealthy obsession

173

Norvig-Generis t1_j5fw6os wrote

Because they literally chose to be a race centered society instead of a post racial, they are consciously and legally moving towards segregation and all that, its wild.

46

st4n13l t1_j5fwg3g wrote

>they are consciously and legally moving towards segregation and all that, its wild.

That would be wild if it were actually true

27

Norvig-Generis t1_j5fzcsb wrote

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/apr/18/more-universities-holding-segregated-graduation-ev/

There ya go, next time just ask nicely.

Btw I'm just highlighting how America is on a path towards being more centered around race and even separating people based on it, this is not a discussion on identity politics or left/right, plz

13

st4n13l t1_j5g1nlt wrote

The vast majority of those they referred to have additional, optional graduation events for smaller communities in addition to the main ceremony. This is not ethnic segregation like what that the US enforced for the first 200 years of our existence.

22

Bard_Bromance_Club t1_j5j9ysu wrote

so it's not forced segregation but optional segregation. How is that distinction any better in response to his comment?

5

st4n13l t1_j5jgkfx wrote

The same way forcing religion is bad but allowing people to practice their own faiths is not bad

−4

Bard_Bromance_Club t1_j5jwzii wrote

That is the biggest misnomer for lack of a better word. To expand on your analogy, I can talk about the islamic faith and consider converting to it from a christian background. I can talk about the flaws in christanity compared to judaism compared to islam and so on. Everyone has the free will to engage in these conversations or beliefs. In segregation you are preventing anyone from engaging who doesn't fit a racial profile.

​

I have gone into a mosque to talk with an Imam about Islam and was welcomed and encouraged. Would that be the same in this scenario of segregation?

8

tabrisangel t1_j5g60cp wrote

Oh damn you got him! (By making an absurd strawman argument

−2

st4n13l t1_j5g9w8i wrote

They said the US was consciously and legally headed toward segregation. The "evidence" they presented doesn't support that when considered in the context of what those universities are actually doing. And even if it did, it doesn't support anything about moving legally towards segregation.

Where's the strawman?

3

Rraen_ t1_j5kinw8 wrote

I think they were trying to say that we are choosing to segregate ourselves more publicly, not that there is a return to government mandated segregation. Which is somewhat true, but not necessarily dysfunctional or unhealthy. There's a really interesting study by Robert Putnam from Harvard. Here's part of the abstract relevant to this topic:

In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital.

I'm not going to use silly words like good and bad, some of us do choose to segregate ourselves, but we appear to do it more typically because of the desire for community and safety, as opposed to hate for the other.

4

MarioKartWiii t1_j5gvauc wrote

Some people think additional optional events is the same as forcing people to segregate and there’s no educating them. Our only hope is that they leave or die

3

vonRoeff t1_j5ib1cp wrote

I'm curious, would you accept a "whites only" additional optional event?

10

gifs_not_jifs t1_j5jjdrv wrote

We recognize the realities of race while Europeans continue to deny the Afro-European experience as valid.

1

Norvig-Generis t1_j5ko7sd wrote

Exactly, you want to keep having your society differentiating clearly between Americans depending only on their skin color, instead of creating the basis for a future where our children dont care about color.

The great example for me is how europeans learned to not care about blonde northern hair vs dark southern hair, straight western nose vs eastern crooked nose, red-heads. etc.

Not to say that, typically, the more northern and western you are, the higher the chances of you being well off in life. But the fact the rules don't perpetuate that notion ad infinitum made it a lot easier for people to stop looking at individuals as members of a specific sub group, and just see them as regular Europeans.

I believe the African american experience will never be accepted as a normal American experience for as long as you make sure to differentiate it as much as possible. And the more specific rules you make for those people, the harder it is for everyone to have the same experience and understand each other.

3

[deleted] t1_j5g7aqi wrote

We are just curious about how everything works. We measure everything, even by flying right into the hurricanes. We have an innate appetite to understand everything from foundational levels and ponder how can we do it better. It may look like there is lot of chaos and in some case they are; but it is this creative chaos that makes US awesome!

0

Flatscreens t1_j5iesxm wrote

Being "post racial" ignores the inequalities and repercussions from centuries of legally enforced racial discrimination.

−4

gza_liquidswords t1_j5jl9an wrote

>Being "post racial" ignores the inequalities and repercussions from centuries of legally enforced racial discrimination.

Also ignores all of the active and ongoing discrimination over last 60 years.

3

Norvig-Generis t1_j5kpykz wrote

No, instead of focusing on all races being equally rich, it's focused on all poors (independent of skin color) stop being poor. Socio economic level of parents defines your life way more than skin color.

2

unoriginal_design t1_j5sinf8 wrote

You realize how confounded that issue is, particularly in the United States though? So the economic level of your parents is highly dependent on intergenerational wealth. We didn’t stop enslaving black people until literally what 5 or 6 generations ago? And even when we did, we have implemented so many policies in this country over the past century alone that have severely hampered black and brown communities ability to rise up to the socioeconomic levels of white Americans. You can’t amass intergenerational wealth if just a few generations ago your family were literal slaves and then second class citizens.

Tulsa massacre is a perfect example, but just one of so many modern atrocities. When black people started to actually rise up economically their entire “black Wall Street,” a thriving economic center of Tulsa was razed to the ground and they were murdered because white people were jealous of their success.

My mother was born one year after interracial marriage was legalized. To me that really hits home as exactly 1 generation ago I wouldn’t be able to marry my fiancée in this country. These racist laws and policies are not some distant past, they’re still on going.

Today you basically can’t be black in this country without fearing the police can end your life for literally any reason whatsoever. Your parents being murdered or incarcerated at much higher rates is not great for their socioeconomic status :|. I’m literally afraid daily for the life of my fiancée (and mine at times, cause I’m Latino so I’m fair game too…)

Seriously, we focus on this shit because it’s fucking real and affects peoples lives. Socioeconomic class and race are confounding variables :| like not even just in the US, India’s whole fucking socioeconomic caste system has colorism ingrained, just to name one example.

1

5irSkellington t1_j5j0t18 wrote

Why dont you just get the fuck over it? Overy people on earth has faced discrimination and slavery at some point in history

−1

DeltaVZerda t1_j5ft8oz wrote

Because unlike most countries, the USA is hyper-aware of it's problems with race and is currently undergoing a major societal shift to better them. We've come a long way, but we still have some distance to go. Ignoring it would be way more unhealthy.

14

hurdurnotavailable t1_j5fwb1f wrote

There is no problem unless there exists evidence that the differences in outcome are coming from discrimination. This evidence has never been provided... instead it is simply assumed to be true, almost like an axiom (which isn't justified tho). That's why the US' obsession with race is so irrational, while seeming reasonable on the surface.

−16

kdavis37 t1_j5gkn6r wrote

There's never been evidence provided that there's racial discrimination in the workplace, especially related to hiring? Am I understanding your claim correctly?

22

hurdurnotavailable t1_j5gl8qg wrote

There's has never been evidence provided that would justify the claim that the differences in outcome are solely or mostly due to discrimination. There are many other variables that are better at explaining those differences.....

Read "Discrimination and Disparities" from Thomas Sowell to better understand this issue.

Edit: Somehow my comment got messed up. Reddit editor really doesn't like copy&paste.

−11

ZurakZigil t1_j5hqmf5 wrote

...are you for real? Like you have to be joking

8

kdavis37 t1_j5gmyxb wrote

You should read anything from an actual sociologist instead of a talk show host's assistant.

5

YouAreInsufferable t1_j5irsuw wrote

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821669/

Just one piece of the paper citing other papers on discrimination:

>These include studies that have examined the relationship between discrimination and schizophrenia among ethnic minorities in the Netherlands (Veling et al. 2007), burn-out in U.S. medical students (Dyrbye et al. 2007), daily moods among multi-ethnic U.S. adults (Broudy et al. 2007), cognitive impairment among black and white university students (Salvatore and Shelton 2007), and current rates of psychiatric disorders in a national sample of Asian Americans (Gee et al. 2007b). Discrimination has also been associated with homesickness among college students (Poyrazli and Lopez 2007) and conduct problems among adolescents (Brody et al. 2006).

J Behav Med. 2009 Feb; 32(1): 20.

0

DelcoScum t1_j5g79uo wrote

The problem is that even if the outcome isn't being influenced directly, it is still being influenced.

If the previous generation of your family/community statistically migrated to a career path, you are more likely to follow. For demographics that were discriminated against, this means that they still feel the effects of that discrimination, even though they might not have actually faced the same discrimination (they do, for the record, but were just talking in theory).

So do you ignore the problem or create small changes, and allow the minority to continue to feel the effects of those previous generations, but at the same time being more fair to the current candidates?

Or do you Overcorrect temporarily in an attempt to stimulate those communities and create normalcy throughout every demographic, but at the same time admittedly create a new kind of discrimination?

It's a nuanced discussion with no clear answer. At the end of the day skilled jobs are finite, so someone is going to lose out.

5

vacri t1_j5hmc1r wrote

I like how you ask for evidence of difference in outcome... when the word 'discrimination' itself inherently means a difference in outcome. If someone is discriminated against, it's because they've had a difference in outcome.

What other words in English do you require evidence for their definitions?

−1

hurdurnotavailable t1_j5hsg15 wrote

.... there are other variables that can explain differences in outcome, besides "discrimination". Not sure what you don't understand about that.

2

Varcharlos t1_j5hhukd wrote

Bruh a lot of your most recent discussions were about race. By your own logic, aren’t you also dealing with an unhealthy obsession?

14

ZurakZigil t1_j5hqv3v wrote

they always project

17

LeverageToMyPRT t1_j5i14gr wrote

It’s moving our society backwards. But sure italics make your opinion infallible!

−4

ZurakZigil t1_j5iq9dr wrote

Or, hear me out, you're backwards and that's why everything looks so wonky.

glad I could help :)

edit: [redacted]

edit2: removed edit with nonsense tirade, sorry... or they edited their comment

0

3wteasz t1_j5it90z wrote

You also need to be smart enough to be able to read the room, that you cause more damage than what you solve with your horrendous attempt. And btw, there is no guarantee that you are the smart one just because somebody dumber criticizes you. There are many things wrong in the US society and unfortunately your exceptionalism is not only one of them, it also keeps you from recognizing all the others.

1

Varcharlos t1_j5j0dwa wrote

You say that American exceptionalism is an issue, but then proceeded to complain that we expose our racial inequalities. Wouldn’t the latter be an example of the opposite of exceptionalism?

Speaking of which, yeah sure Americans may think they’re the best, but Europeans think they’re better and smarter than Americans. You’re not any better than Americans in the “thinking you’re better” department and you guys smoke too much. So get off your high horse.

3

3wteasz t1_j5j10ww wrote

Sorry my man, I am not on a high horse for pointing out that Americans are on one.

Also, you're good at mixing up stuff and twisting words. I first complained about these graphs and about this constant need to point out racial differences and then, after being approached by this other dude with his exceptionalistic argument, said that his exceptionalism, the way they implied that the US society is without flaws, makes it hard for him to see my point. So I don't get your argument..

Edit: also, I hate speaking about "Americans", because my Mexican friends are totally different than the typical US-American we are talking here and I don't want to generalize in that way.

0

ZurakZigil t1_j5ivqv0 wrote

*reads the room and sees a lot of progress, and all the regression from people pushing back saying "look at all the damage you've done"*

All the damage is because people won't let us move on, not because we are trying to move on.

Typical right winged nonsense. Plant your feet and require everyone to carry you while you exclaim "if we just went my way it would be easier."

So shut up sand start helping people.

1

3wteasz t1_j5ixpgd wrote

Stop the meaningless slogans and provide examples. And get your mind into the shoes of other people. I am not "American" and I am for sure not right winged. The discussions about race in the US are annoyingly toxic, your society is divided beyond repair. I have no way myself because in my society racism is not as big a problem and the solutions don't require us to constantly reemphasize that there are so an so many others.

You should shut up and instead of constantly reiterating anachronistic facts about your outdated believe system, you should start asking yourself some harder questions. It's apparent that the current attempt has failed!

3

ZurakZigil t1_j5jno05 wrote

Yeah, we already have tried the color-blind. Helped some but stagnated because it grew ignorance. We found in order to unify pur people we have to understand what divides us, and in order to do that we have to accept, study, and track what divides us.

Charts like this are one point of data to track. It's not the whole story, and it proves nothing within itself, but it's one metric to look at to gauge our progress.

PS. It's not out dated, it's the most up to date method. Many people, including myself at one point, do not get why we're now doing this. It's a multi-faceted challenge that needs addressing and it will take time to fix. Ignoring the challenge does not solve it.

edit: Right winged take, so either way... point still stands. And no offense, but i don't have the time to get sources for you. Id look at things with earlier signs of change (tech jobs are kinda a final bastion imo). Look at college admission and graduation records. Data will be young so there's not going to be huge upticks

1

3wteasz t1_j5k5r7q wrote

Thanks for this differentiated response. I am thinking that what actually divides us is that we don't listen to others and the we see the "otherness" instead of the commonalities. Put white people into a bad neighborhood without fathers and you get the same problems as with other ethnicities. It seems that not the ethnicity is/has a problem, but that people are in bad places and that it's mostly minority ethnicities that are in bad places. For instance, if you are ethnic Russian in Eastern Estonia, you'll have a worse chance in this society than "pure" Estonians. So I am then wondering why it's race that is used to explain differences? And why is it that when social scientist speak about diversity, they don't abide by the statistical standards that exist, eg, in the actual diversity science (ecology). These shitty figures just plant weird ideas into the mind of anybody that doesn't fully understand ALL of those issues, and that's most people... Idk, I am simply not convinced it's a good solution to constantly tell people about their differences.

1

tules t1_j5i2t1x wrote

"Why does every question have to involve race in the US?"

"Why shouldn't it? Maybe you're the racist!"

You can't win in these discussions u/BaalHammonBePraised, don't even try.

−1

arcticsnom t1_j5j74mh wrote

huh??? i didnt find a single race related comment in the past 20-30 comments

−1

drquaithe t1_j5i0z5r wrote

Because the USA was built by genocide and slavery and what it is now is their direct descendant. You can't understand much about it in any kind of precise way without factoring in race.

It's like measuring something about the British Isles and lumping together the statistics for England and Ireland. Or talking about austerity in the EU without factoring in the difference in its effects on the southern Europe vs central and northern. It will miss the picture.

10

santimo87 t1_j5kv908 wrote

While I agree with all of that, some of these race based statistics are super weird (not exactly OP). Also, Hispanic is not a race and for a society that (understandably) pays so much attention to race (and has a big hispanic population) you should have figured out a better way to incorporate hispanic people and their issues to your analyses.

3

streamofstars t1_j5izeoj wrote

>Because the USA was built by genocide and slavery and what it is now is their direct descendant.

Come on, this is a historical cliche for like 3/4 of countries in both Americas. But it's only the US that cannot get over it.

2

drquaithe t1_j5k8mie wrote

Oh my sweet summer child. You should look at current events and political tensions in basically any country in either of the Americas and the Caribbean, and many of the countries beyond.

1

AdRepresentative5085 t1_j5j0zl4 wrote

To be fair, when you have one pov that misses the "good ol' days" you're bound to find resistance. It doesn't help this pov has spawned another opposite fringe group.

​

It hasn't been more than 100 years since past segregation, so the next generation is bound to feel the effects.

0

Neowynd101262 t1_j5h4c65 wrote

Because it can be an effective method of bringing an agenda to fruition.

3

RevolutionaryChip864 t1_j5iy4x3 wrote

Thank you! The fact that in the US 'hispanic' and 'white' are two different racial group is absolutely bizarr. 'Hispanic' literally means 'spanish', which is simply European. You can not distinguish an italian from a spanish or a portuguese just by the look. Half of US political topics are about percentage of different races in different statistics. This is insane.

1

slutshaa t1_j5iz1kp wrote

In the US it's not European - the overwhelming majority of Hispanic ppl in the US are of Mexican / South American origin

6

RevolutionaryChip864 t1_j5izmdx wrote

And how would you describe the people of South American origin racially? They have certain characteristics distinguish them from 'whites'? Is Lionel Messi white or 'hispanic'? Is Del Potro white or hispanic? Rodrigo Santoro looks like an everyday guy from south France or Florense. You just couldn't tell. Would you categorize him as 'hispanic' in a workplace or white? Would you use some kind a color measurement? This racial systematization is extremely racist in my eyes, and also doesn't make any sense logically.

1

SignificanceBulky162 t1_j5yw67k wrote

There are white Hispanics, they are not considered two different racial groups in the US just two different classifications.

1

FlaSaltine239 t1_j5fzm6h wrote

Because the USA isn't a race, it's where races migrate to. Unfortunately one race dominated the entire society to the point of creating an advantage for only it. It's been roughly 8-10 generations since our creation but we're only 1 or 2 into other races being allowed to vote or own anything.

−1

IreneReiGargar t1_j5ifn7l wrote

You just watched a graph of the racial diversity of several companies. Dude you're that ignorant 😂

−1

AdRepresentative5085 t1_j5j16eg wrote

May be unhealthy but can't blame them. It hasn't been more than 100 years since segregation was fully abolished, by the way. How do you think the next generation feels? How should they move on?

−2

glitch241 t1_j5ioz9q wrote

Because the US is one of the most racially diverse countries.

It’s easy for no one to notice racial issues in a homogeneous society. Nearly all countries in the world are basically ethnostates.

−3

kmeci t1_j5j1lyo wrote

Go tell that to Indians who have over 120 major languages and more than 2000 ethnic groups that they're all the same because of skin color.

The "race" as US understands it such an arbitrary concept that virtually no other countries even recognize it.

1

glitch241 t1_j5j6jb7 wrote

There are almost 5 million Indians in the US so most of those languages and ethnicities would also be represented. US leads the world in current immigrant population at 50 million. 42 million Americans of African descent compared to 40 thousand in India. How can India be more diverse with such a small population from Africa, Europe or South America? All the thousands of ethnic groups in the US and to you they are all the same because they are just “Americans” now.

1

kmeci t1_j5j96cp wrote

Because diversity doesn't equal number of immigrants and/or skin colors. What's more "diverse", when your neighbor has identical culture but a different skin tone or when he doesn't even speak the same language?

In both ethnic and linguistic diversity rankings US doesn't even reach top 50: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level

1

glitch241 t1_j5jcuwn wrote

Moving the goal post fallacy. You established that number of languages and ethnic groups present was the criteria for measuring diversity. Once your criteria was challenged, you then introduced a new methodology based on a researcher using fractionalization, a methodology that happens to achieve your conclusion.

The US is a very diverse country given its constant flow of immigrants and lack of lengthy history or genealogy. Can you claim other places are more diverse that have a bunch of tribes and ethnicities that belong to greater ethnic and linguistic families? Sure I guess. Certainly can’t try that claim in most countries though. Most are low immigration, low minority counties. European counties are basically ethnostates that don’t come out and say it. But the numbers and immigration policies don’t lie.

1

SpiderFarter t1_j5g6amy wrote

Identity politics to divide and create a permanent dependency class increasing overall government control. Mostly fostered by the left.

−9

kdavis37 t1_j5gkhqq wrote

Put down the crack.

11

SpiderFarter t1_j5gw7e3 wrote

Started with the great society when welfare started to destroy the black family by replacing work.

−9

kdavis37 t1_j5gx2jk wrote

It started when black people were fucking enslaved, followed by laws created to keep black people from keeping and growing generational wealth, followed by laws to keep black people from voting, followed by keeping black people from staying together as families and buying homes.

7

vol99_ t1_j5g3880 wrote

I guarantee that the vast majority of the non-white and non-Asian employees in these companies are confined to non-technical jobs like the hr department or something. These companies would love to hire a lot more black people for pr purposes, but just can’t find the candidates to do so.

96

Garconcl t1_j5gceeh wrote

This, I work for a Fin-tech company, all women are relegated to non-technical jobs and all men to technical jobs, and it's extremely funny seeing them appear as a well balanced company yet they discriminate men for non-technical positions and women for technical ones and some of the women they turned down are 30x times better than around 50% of my current coworkers, lol.

43

TheHolyPuck t1_j5jcoed wrote

So in your opinion the women interviewed were 30x better than 50% of your current workers, and were all turned down cause they were women? Yeah… I call bullshit

8

Garconcl t1_j5k01fu wrote

>some of the women they turned down are 30x times better than around 50% of my current coworkers

Learn to read: "some of the women they turned down are 30x times better than around 50% of my current coworkers" I never said all.

I know 3 of the women that applied for positions equal or below to mine, I worked or studied with them, all extremely skilled. They ended up hiring guys with a lot less verified experience, hell one of them was so infamous that he said he had 15 years of experience from asia, he didn't know the basics, his work had to be peer reviewed for every single detail almost to the point of being re done again.

​

My theory is that they don't want to hire women because dealing with the lack of basic manners some of those guys have.

3

amazingmollusque t1_j5hfxfg wrote

Ugh, such a great example of how sexism hurts both men and women.

6

rewt127 t1_j5jprv7 wrote

The guy is just straight up lying. No modern US tech company in California would turn away someone who is a significantly better fit for a position just because they are a woman.

5

camxus t1_j5ixxm4 wrote

stupid comment. this called people in their natural role. and it works. this ofc doesn’t mean women shouldn’t be ALLOWED to take up those positions if they are good and vice versa. stop crying wolf and focus on more important things

−8

slutshaa t1_j5iyxun wrote

in their natural role? what 😭

5

camxus t1_j5izd3h wrote

omg. in the role that best suits their abilities … u lot read into shit too much.

−4

slutshaa t1_j5izg5a wrote

but that generalization isn't true? men aren't more suited to engineering roles than women are

3

5irSkellington t1_j5j0ltj wrote

All evidence points to the fact that is in fact the case though. Not something we have to be happy about , but it's the truth

0

FrogOfDreams t1_j5jbeq7 wrote

No, the evidence is that men are ON AVERAGE more likely to be better in tech. And as long as your hiring process isn't bogus, a woman with the same qualifications is just as good as a man because she hot THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS

3

5irSkellington t1_j5jlx4j wrote

I agree though, the problem is usually interest and not capability

0

camxus t1_j5j4nhs wrote

sorry. u can’t blame my EE class having 6:300 f/m ratio on the patriarchy. It’s highkey an insult to the females who actually end up going thru it. It has less to do with gender and more with sex. The girls who were in my class were verrrry obviously different to say female artist friends of mine. Their brains just work differently.

it just doesn’t work that way. Females and Males generally have different abilities and aptitudes and that’s fine. Women need to stop trying to be men and tap into the skills that make them special. Same goes for men

−2

DevinCauley-Towns t1_j5j8fyr wrote

Most evidence actually suggests that girls choose to go into certain STEM roles at lower rates than men for a variety of reasons, most of which are NOT inherently biological and the “biological” reasons don’t present until much later in life after the other factors could already skew the results. Here are some excerpts from a meta analysis conducted on the topic.

> Successful careers in math and science require many types of cognitive abilities. Females tend to excel in verbal abilities, with large differences between females and males found when assessments include writing samples. High-level achievement in science and math requires the ability to communicate effectively and comprehend abstract ideas, so the female advantage in writing should be helpful in all academic domains. Males outperform females on most measures of visuospatial abilities, which have been implicated as contributing to sex differences on standardized exams in mathematics and science.

There are differences in performance between men and women for certain areas, though being a good SWE or other technical role requires a variety of skills, men generally perform better at one type and women generally perform better another. Anecdotally, as someone working in tech I find my female co-workers to be more organized and have better communication skills that make them easier to work with and often perform quality work more consistently.

> A wide range of sociocultural forces contribute to sex differences in mathematics and science achievement and ability—including the effects of family, neighborhood, peer, and school influences; training and experience; and cultural practices. We conclude that early experience, biological factors, educational policy, and cultural context affect the number of women and men who pursue advanced study in science and math and that these effects add and interact in complex ways. There are no single or simple answers to the complex questions about sex differences in science and mathematics.

If you read the above, 3 of the 4 categories contributing to the differences in STEM achievement are unrelated to biology. Meaning these differences are NOT generally “natural” as you incorrectly suggested. Early experience, such as being told you don’t have the ability to pursue STEM due to your “natural abilities” is one such influence that reduces performance and drives women away from the field. So literally the behaviour you’re exhibiting is a contributing factor to why your program has so many men and few women. Next time, stop being an ass and do some research before parroting harmful sexist ideas that are clearly NOT supported by the literature, or at very least don’t make up the majority of differences.

8

camxus t1_j5jct56 wrote

i appreciate u doing research and i agree. u literally repeated my point. “NATURALLY” has nothing to do with biological in my prev context. i repeatedly already said natural abilities in context to what skills people have tendencies for be it biological, cultural, societal doesnt matter.

for lost engineering positions while communication is a part of the job it isn’t the most important part. female PMs are better than males for instance. There is space for women leads in tech. My point is that a majority of women wouldn’t do well in the Engineering department due to reasons you highlighted above

1

camxus t1_j5jd8ts wrote

i appreciate u doing research and i agree. u literally repeated my point. “NATURALLY” has nothing to do with biological in my prev context. i repeatedly already said natural abilities in context to what skills people have tendencies for be it biological, cultural, societal doesnt matter.

for most engineering positions while communication is a part of the job it isn’t the most important part. female PMs are better than males for instance. There is space for women leads in tech. My point is that a majority of women wouldn’t do well in the Engineering department due to reasons you highlighted above

also i’m not sexist. you just don’t see the value women’s roles hold in society. If women don’t do them and men can’t society would fall apart. best luck to you

1

camxus t1_j5jegtd wrote

also i think you should read a bit more of that meta analysis especially on:

Sex and Gender

Biological and Innate

Abilities and Achievement

> Humans are born with innate abilities, such as the ability to learn a language, but the language they learn, if any, depends largely on their experience. Similarly, they are born with the innate ability to count and discern quantities, but how they develop those abilities depends on their environment and learning experiences. Abilities are developed in supportive environments.

ALSO science and engineering are very different fields. The relationship between male and female scientists is way more balanced than that of m:f engineers. You’re trying to make the woke point that women and men have exactly the same aptitudes and this is simply false. OFC there are women who have aptitudes usually found in males but that’s not the usual case. There’s so many biological and societal factors that makes us different from another.

1

camxus t1_j5j4use wrote

I’d much rather have a female accountant, bookkeeper or HR recruiter/manager than a male. They just do the job better. The best know their worth and get paid accordingly.

−2

AdRepresentative5085 t1_j5j0fow wrote

Non-tech can be anything that's not very physical. The only jobs where these discrepancies realistically exist are firefighting, construction, mining and oil rigs.

​

What is a "natural role's" requirements in a tech company besides having a brain and mouth? Imposing weird limits like yours sets your company to be in a tough position where you have no one to assume leadership in vacant roles, even if just temporary.

2

camxus t1_j5j5d19 wrote

well for one women will fit well better in interpersonal roles such as HR and (low-mid level) teaching (if the pay was better tho).

Women are generally better organized than men which if they are decent with numbers lends them well with managerial roles and accounting. Women have different physical abilities too which gives them advantages in sports and modeling.

Societally Women have advantages in Media Creation Online and in legacy media. Marketing

everyone of these is a natural role

it’s not about setting limits for people. if they have the required skills they should get the job. just the fact is that majority of women dont

2

AdRepresentative5085 t1_j5kncvo wrote

By what measurement are they fit for the role other than an interview? When you choose a candidate based on numbers charts it misses the entire point of statistics, which is observational data. It doesn’t aim to prove but to disprove, in this case any person is viable. You said it yourself, it’s not about their sex.

2

camxus t1_j5l86of wrote

when did i ever say one should choose them based on the differences in sex? i’m saying these differences exist generally. i believe every candidate for a job is unique case.

obviously a woman who has been able to get the necessary requirements to be competitive on the job market should get the same chances to get the job her male counterparts do.

0

AdRepresentative5085 t1_j5r9wgk wrote

>all women are relegated to non-technical jobs and all men to technical jobs...yet they discriminate men for non-technical positions and women for technical ones and some of the women they turned down are 30x times better

​

>great example of how sexism hurts both men and women

​

>stupid comment. this called people in their natural role. and it works.

​

>when did i ever say one should choose them based on the differences in sex?

Okay. Sure thing. The large discrepancy between both sex groups and their roles has a normal standard deviation, not out of bounds at all, nope.

1

BubblyForce8229 t1_j5ioyst wrote

>and non-Asian employees in these companies are confined to non-technical jobs like the hr department or something

note that the most diverse company (Amazon) has a large warehouse operation.

27

orswich t1_j5itbtv wrote

Thos is my thought also.. if counting ALL employees, then the vast majority of amazon workers in some areas amazon warehouses would probably be Latino or black, while Asians and whites dominate the office jobs

14

FightOnForUsc t1_j5hcvt9 wrote

I work at one of the listed companies, as a software engineer, just out of college. Three of us in my area of the company were hired just out of college, 1 white, 1 Asian American, 1 African American

11

cgyguy81 t1_j5ij01f wrote

I have a feeling that's the case for Amazon.

3

No-Weekend6347 t1_j5itzzv wrote

Do the black graduates not exist?

I am assuming you are speaking more CS and Engineering fields.

2

[deleted] t1_j5fvn2u wrote

[deleted]

64

teamongered OP t1_j5fw9xx wrote

The problem is that very few of these companies break asian down into categories like Indian, South Asian, East Asian, etc. Otherwise I certainly would have displayed that data.

39

FlaSaltine239 t1_j5fzpfs wrote

Russian, Chinese and Iraqi are all Asian. Next topic. /s

6

saucystas t1_j5hk027 wrote

Most of the Russian population is west of the Urals, which is European.

4

afro-tastic t1_j5hgv7v wrote

I didn’t know the New York Times was a tech company. The more you know…

62

Buuhhu t1_j5iuazj wrote

these charts are always "oh you have a website? you're a tech company!"

25

oplus t1_j5ndu3h wrote

I get that they're not intuitively a tech company, but my software team met with them to talk tech, and while they were not as advanced as my household name employer, my conversation with them convinced me that they have a large and competent tech arm. They have enough sophistication that I consider them to be a tech company.

2

phillyraallday t1_j5k5138 wrote

They sure as hell aren’t a credible news outlet anymore

1

Mr_Hassel t1_j5m17pb wrote

Name one more credible. The NYT is one of the most credible and respected news outlets in the world.

0

drquaithe t1_j5fnqwu wrote

This obviously includes all employees, including Amazon warehouse and delivery workers. Some companies have mostly tech employees. As it is it's not a very useful metric.

50

Upstairs_Profile_355 t1_j5h73hm wrote

The black folks at Amazon are driving the trucks… So much for diversity. What about management levels?

15

Expelleddux t1_j5gm6wz wrote

It’s not right to compare representation to the population. It would be better to compare to the pool of qualified people.

11

ar243 t1_j5fkql3 wrote

Here we go again

9

Samlazaz t1_j5h2kiu wrote

Asian is way too broad. Indian and Chinese really needs it's own breakout, if this is done seriously. San Jose is awash in Indian nationals, for example. A huge proportion of these workers are not American - not sure how that is factored in WRT representation.

8

orswich t1_j5itfk7 wrote

They might be classified as "contract workers" and not full time employees maybe if they are there just on a work visa

1

bjorkesaft t1_j5ggero wrote

Wouldn't be legal to collect this data in my country. Where is it legal and why?

6

Aelok t1_j5h1nk9 wrote

Out of the loop here, but why would this info be illegal?

4

LAUSart t1_j5idd7z wrote

In some countries its forbidden to document race, sexual orientation, religion, health etc by companies.

8

teamongered OP t1_j5firi4 wrote

The data is from here: https://www.diversify.fyi/
I created this figure using Python and Plotly.

4

imnotreel t1_j5hnt79 wrote

Couple of critiques :

- The source should be stated clearly in the image.

- You shouldn't interpolate between categorical data points.

- Total population breakdown should sum up to 100% (or you should at least explain why it doesn't if there's an explanation).

- Comparing employee racial distribution to HQ state or country population is absolutely meaningless for companies who have employees in other states / countries (which is gonna be the case for all of the companies listed here)

16

teamongered OP t1_j5hzn59 wrote

Thanks for the feedback.

​

- Good idea. I'll do that next time.

- Hm, I disagree with you here. I added the line smoothing for the purpose of readability, otherwise the bottom left two figures would be a cloud of points. Having colored lines connecting the points makes it easier to locate each data point for a specific company/race. Besides, there was no real interpolation done here, just smooth lines connecting the categories (i.e. companies).

- I agree. I made a similar figure in the past and that is what I did, but I forgot to this time. The race percentages provided by a few companies does add up to > 100%. I presumed this is due to double counting some people who are multi-racial.

- Yeah I am not 100% sure what is the best approach. Would be incredibly hard for me to get data on how many employees are in each state for each company. On the other hand, companies having people in other countries is not a concern here because EEO-1 data is strictly USA employees. There are of course other approaches I could take for comparison, like comparing to the industry trends or demographics of people applying/interviewing, etc... but each approach has their pros/cons.

1

hyunez t1_j5iqfgr wrote

Yes the dots are difficult to read, but connecting them with a line is misleading because it suggests a continuum when it is actually categorical. You need to find another way to present this in a readable way. Have you considered a double sided bar chart?

3

glitch241 t1_j5ip16y wrote

The Amazon one is funny. Probably including warehouse workers.

3

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5gjuo9 wrote

Including only a few states’ racial data in the first column is confusing as no other dataset uses states a a parameter thus not particularly relevant. Also, the state data leads the view up to make false comparisons. As example Data Dog is not based in CA but the layout leads to comparison of those numbers. In addition putting the the the US aggregate data within the states obfuscates the number that will give better context for individual companies below.

1

teamongered OP t1_j5i0xmm wrote

All the companies shown in the figure are headquartered in one of those states (or outside the USA), so that I why I showed those ones in particular. As far as I know, Datadog is headquartered in New York, so I used that state for it's state-level reference. But I see what you're saying, since they are visually close together people may inadvertently compare them. Maybe I could have added some text to indicate which state each company's HQ is in.

​

Also possible I was a bit overly ambitious in this figure by providing both USA and state-level comparisons, but I felt it was worth while since the demographics of some states looks quite difference to the USA overall.

2

Superb_Firefighter20 t1_j5i3wak wrote

Thank you for clarifying. It is impossible to parse the top and second section as it is now. Maybe break up the companies by headquarter state. It will still be weird for companies like Amazon that probably have a lot employees outside of their headquartered state.

I really like setting up the demographic break down if each company compared to the deviation from population demographic.

1

Ankeneering t1_j5hayuv wrote

I do affirmative action planning for companies over 50 people with over 50k in government contacts in the US. I have an x-ray view in to employment decisions in this country. Mathematically. Who gets hired/promoted/terminated/payed etc and their qualifications. The VAST majority or employers simply do not give a shit about your "protected status" (women/minority) they simply want the best person for the job. They don't want someone who's black lesbian and jewish.... they want someone who can sell/analyze/communicate/operate their shit. really. Exceptions being veteran and handicapped...companies WILL go out of their way to give a hand-up to those cats. That's the only real "affirmative action" that exists the way most Americans think of it. (you hire someone based on their person-hood). That whole quotas thing your drunk uncle bitches about at thanksgiving simply doesn't exist. (except kinda for veterans and handicapped).

the only real thing people should get pissed off about is women in banks. those fuckers are all white men. They give VP job titles to them in leu of compensation or actual power. that whole glass ceiling thing really exists in banks and financial institutions.

1

ThePiemaster t1_j5hygc6 wrote

Affirmative action happens at the university admissions level. There are lawsuits in progress about it.

8

Ankeneering t1_j5i7168 wrote

scholastic AAP is a different animal. who the fuck knows what goes on with that.

0

korevis t1_j5is5ct wrote

How does it work, if not the drunken uncle interpretation?

1

komradebae t1_j5hi3s7 wrote

sigh this comment section is a perfect illustration of why I hate being a black person in tech. I hope I can just keep my head down and stack my money for a few more years then get the fuck out.

1

ZurakZigil t1_j5htyba wrote

You referring to being singled out or what's up? I've heard a few stories, but i'm curious what's your experience has been like.

6

aotus_trivirgatus t1_j5i5ot0 wrote

AirB&B has over 100% employees?

A few other firms do as well?

1

teamongered OP t1_j5i7oym wrote

Yeah there are a few companies where the sum is > 100%. I presume at least one reason is double-counting some employees who are multi-racial. Maybe some companies just tally these statistics in different ways. I wanted to originally normalize each company's data to 100%, but forgot to.

2

nkj94 t1_j5i73i3 wrote

It's not fair to compare this with the Demographics of the USA when these companies hire their Employees from a Global pool

1

swiftwilly321 t1_j5ica5y wrote

This is great OP. Wondering what is the underlying data set from ?

1

SuperbSucc t1_j5ie7l8 wrote

Not a data expert, but why are the over/under connected dots? There is no correlation on the Y axis except for the fact it’s sorted by % that are white. Would be more readable without the connecting lines

1

akdjfkwnxiendjajal t1_j5igbg1 wrote

Would love a national average bar on these kinda graphs but beautiful data nonetheless

1

amoral_ponder t1_j5ip87k wrote

This is a shitty graph. This needs to be as a per capita of population or something. But per capita where? In the world, potentially, as these are recruiting global talent. Asians are far over represented vs whites in tech.

1

RankTHETank047 t1_j5itq5i wrote

Lol at cali and Washington being sooo progressive and diverse and still having such a low rate of black people in their tech companies

1

theErasmusStudent t1_j5itzhv wrote

It would nice to know what the average population looks like as well to be able to compare

1

_plastikman t1_j5iv6zl wrote

I am more interested to know how they get these data?

1

FranVeda t1_j5j6f2u wrote

Look at old Bezos being the only “nice guy”

1

NotPopularButTrue1 t1_j5jbfia wrote

If everyone just put other on their demographic information at hire, all of a sudden we would all be equal.

1

ifdisdendat t1_j5jhck0 wrote

Why would the NYT be included and not IBM ?

1

whytewidow6 t1_j5k8vym wrote

Making things somehow racist when nothing is racist here.

1

BeefNacho_ t1_j5vexw0 wrote

How do you include NYT and other "not really tech but we have an app and website" companies, but not include real tech companies like AMD and IBM??

1

Independent-Bike8810 t1_j5hgxph wrote

Look it’s also a case of anecdotal evidence. I declined many black male tech candidates because they didn’t have the level expertise I was looking for but I also came across a black woman whose expertise blew them out of the water. I know I have bias towards women in tech based on my experience. Say of the 40 I know, 35 are out of their element it seems. But then the remanning 5 know more and do their job better than any man I know.

0

ZurakZigil t1_j5htlw7 wrote

You mean the story you just described is anecdotal, right?

And what you're describing is the end result of many different issues and trends. Not really anecdotal at all. It's part of why those charts are the way they are.

3

crazyhadron t1_j5i634k wrote

It's called the underdog effect, dawg. Appears in competitive sports all the time.

2

chefko t1_j5gwg0i wrote

Its insane how the usa has degraded...they keep record of race like grade A nazis...

−1

ZurakZigil t1_j5ht12k wrote

believe it or not, it's a solution to a problem. link

The USA needs to be unified, and the best path is recognizing and talking about our differences that have separated us. That is how we'll improve the quality of life of our people.

3

swimnemofish t1_j5hm6d4 wrote

In Denver, where a lot of these PMC tech goons live, they are pushing out working class people that have lived in those neighborhoods for decades. Gone are the historic beautiful homes and in with the shitty “modern” townhouses that cost millions. People of ALL skin colors in these privileged, high paying jobs are fucking up America. Stop obsessing over the culture war and dividing people.

−6

ZurakZigil t1_j5huo02 wrote

My favorite part of reading comments from people like you is how they're so off the wall they're almost gibberish.

6

swimnemofish t1_j5i1bdv wrote

It’s only “off the wall” to people that accept the system instead of questioning it. People like OP’s preoccupation with allocating people by identity within an unequal system is not the primary problem. The inequality of the system by class is the primary problem. Fix that and then identity politics can be addressed meaningfully.

Nothing changes with more women or POC as CEO. They do the same shit.

Again, this is probably going right over your head 🙄

−1

ZurakZigil t1_j5iptdn wrote

I agree there's wealth inequality (and growing rapidly), and it has a huge play in situations like this... but ignoring "identity politics" doesn't help us solve these issues any quicker.

No one is saying it's only because white people don't like ___ people except the people that get immediately pissed when they see posts like this. It's a systematic issue, and one of the key issues is wealth disparity. But I hope you also see that's the issue. That's the entire problem. Your "solution" is also the problem. That's why they have tried to tackle identity politics...to solve the wealth inequality.

edit: Still want to clarify your first comment...definitely off the wall lol

2

United_Target8942 t1_j5iyk99 wrote

Focusing on identity politics won't do much to solve wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is caused by class-based policies. Furthermore, if identity politics becomes the main focus, it alienates much of the public. Class politics has a much larger common interest.

There's a lot of cynicism to be had when countries like South Africa get rid of apartheid but then the country goes ultracapitalist, resulting in extremely high unemployment and inequality.

Also the reason identity politics is discussed more is because the rich tolerate it more. They don't care that much about it because for most of industry it doesn't effect them very much. This is in stark contrast to class politics, most of the scholars that critique class don't get much mainstream media attention.

It's also the reason why mainstream discussion of identity politics is focused more towards things like job equality rather than the seriously egregious examples of racial oppression like the mass incarceration system, which has produced over a million slaves, legally.

1