new_corp_dev

> Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank.

> We talk to each other. We warn each other. If there aren’t any women pitching you, it’s not a pipeline problem.

Secret industry blacklist amongst women, causing them to actively avoid potential opportunities.

Blacklist prevents women from applying for VC funding, panels, etc.

Fire everyone. Point blank.

> I think that this verb is particularly meaningful in that a member of our community killed himself not that long ago and those of us that were close to him would rather not be reminded of it every time we use this API.

Everybody deals with tragedies, they're a part of life. Being an adult means facing those tragedies and accepting them. It's not easy, and some tragedies are just too much for someone to fully accept and move on from, but there should never be any reasonable expectation that the world should change to accommodate them.

Unsubstantive pot-stirring, followed by a Patreon link.

The implication is that diversity of experience/background/culture leads to diversity of thought and diversity of ideas. That's fairly logical and noble goal, but it ignores the idea that that same diversity of interests contributes to a different average career path. It simultaneously argues for "the same, but different".

If we're going to blame the employers, can someone show me that there's a disproportionately large number of unemployed minority engineers that are seeking work but not getting it?

Giving someone an opportunity based on a protected class, which denies that same opportunity to someone else of that protected class, is discrimination. It is treating someone negatively based on their protected class. It's the textbook definition of discrimination.

Critical race theory is as effective at hiding that fact as a Klu Klux Klan white hood.

And what if said young software engineering student reads Bryana's blog post and realizes that Bryana may only have been chosen to speak because she is a woman? What sort of inspiration would that be for other women to join STEM? How should anyone view speakers that have been invited to speak based primarily on their race or gender?

It would set the whole industry back by decades. Not because women got involved, but because they became token minorities instead of competent colleagues. For an entire generation, minority STEM students would face impostor syndrome in themselves, and have to work twice as hard to prove themselves because everyone would assume they got to where they are based on "positive discrimination" instead of merit and ability.

It means your hypothetical substitution situation is no different from mine, I just happen to have picked a substitution based on an existing situation that meets the criteria you chose. The fact that it disagrees with your worldview does not mean you can discount it outright.

Men and women deserve the same opportunities and treatment in all industries, but any situations where those opportunities skew one way or the other does not mean that the solution is more discrimination.

We've built our straw effigies from the same bale, mine just happens to burn more cleanly.

Nobody is questioning her ability or qualifications, only your decision to offer her opportunities and incentives based on her gender which her post implies were not also available to equally qualified male members of her team.

If you want to put the conversation to rest, simply clarify that point.

Let's make it more fair: instead of men and women changing jobs, ostensibly causing a great deal of chaos, let's go with a parallel universe where your conditions are already in place.

Or even better, let's use industries in our own universe that already has those conditions: education and child care.

What sort of "special treatment" do men get in those industries? Well, in many day care services, the male employees are not allowed to be alone with children. In education, male teachers make it a deliberate point not to be alone with students, because a single false accusation would end their career permanently.

But are there cries for more "positive discrimination" from the men in those industries? Not that I've heard. Equal treatment would be just dandy, though.

I disagree. Discrimination, both sexism and racism, is any negative treatment towards someone based on protected status, regardless of who is "in power".

The critical race theory definition is just a shield to hide behind while practicing racist or sexist behavior, and I will only acknowledge it as such.

All capable employees should be encouraged and incentivized equally, or based on their competence. Incentive based on protected status is discrimination.

Helping people overcome whatever unique problems they face in order to reach their full potential is expected and encouraged. Offering them opportunities solely based on a protected status is not.

I reiterate: if the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status.

In the very same article the author laments not knowing whether she is being offered more responsibility because she is a woman or if it's because she's seen as capable and competent. It's a completely valid assumption, because she's already been offered more responsibility because she is a woman.

She says she was encouraged to apply and speak at conferences, and that management would campaign for the whole team to attend any conferences where she is accepted to speak.

> This may seem like special treatment or in some ways unfair. "Reverse sexism" some might call it. I don't see it that way. This industry treats women differently, so my managers treat me differently in the exact opposite way the industry does.

I would not call it "reverse sexism", because it is is just plain sexism. Of course the author doesn't "see it that way", despite acknowledging it, because the author directly benefits from said sexism.

If the author is being encouraged to apply for and accepted to speak at conferences primarily based on their gender, then the industry's reaction will be to expect that women speakers are token speakers, and this will set back women in the industry.

Embrace differences, embrace diversity, but in the long run special treatment does not benefit anybody.

The Contributor Covenant is a simple document that explicitly tells people not to do the things they already know not to do.

The Open Code of Conduct is a design-by-committee list of all the reasons you're a terrible person and you just don't know it yet, but don't worry as soon as you slip up we'll wage a campaign of harassment against you because you're "privileged" and you deserve it. And don't you dare criticize it, because "reverse"-isms don't exist.