Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

[flagged]


This comment is uncivil to the point of outright trolling, so we've banned the account. If you want to participate within the guidelines you can email us at hn@ycombinator.com.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Any one anecdote is not sufficient to establish truth, yours included. Instead we usually employ the scientific method. In that context, the following two studies (which are good, frequently quoted examples, but are reproduced in many other context) make it more plausible that your observations are either outliers, or are colored by a personal bias:

- Blind interview where the gender is unknown lead to gender parity in hiring (example of a particular industry, reproduced in others): https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

- When everything else is equal, the same applicant is rated lower if they are female: http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-bat... (link to the study itself http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full )

If you would like so, I can provide some more links to aggregations, rebuttals, and meta studies that as a whole confirm the general ideas uncovered in the above studies, but with cursory googling you will be able to do the same yourself.

I can agree that poorly instituted or misapplied affirmative action policies are harmful for everybody. I can agree that "PC culture" can be poisonous and detrimental. But most objective measurements do show that there is indeed bias against minorities and women.

P.S. The self-aggrandizing talk about unicorns and millions is making the rest of your argument difficult to take at face value. Similarly with the fairly off putting implication that respecting women is the same as being subservient to women (the talk about "betas").




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: