Wednesday, September 24, 2014

And not everything that can possibly taken as offensive SHOULD be taken as offensive

alternate title...
The Disappearance of Objective Truth
.
This article is fascinating in a couple of ways.  At the top level, there is a simple discussion of one entrepreneur’s business model.  The founder of LookSmart (an online advertising agency) said that female developers are as good as men, and cheaper to hire.  He points this out to stupid male hiring managers, that hire men who aren’t as good AND require more money.
.
Interesting.
.
And to his credit his company has a number of women not only as developers, but in managerial roles at the corporate level.
.
But then it gets stupid. Someone reminds him that this is a sexist statement and pay discrimination is illegal in the United States.
.
That is neither particularly correct (the sexist part) nor helpful.  It is (his) objective truth that it is easier and cheaper to hire women in this field. At least objectively true in the experience of this owner.  That statement isn’t sexist.  
.
It is, to me, kind of the opposite of sexist.  Speaking out about inequality is a good thing.  If everyone hired the best programmers, regardless of sex, prices would go up.  He is saying; hire them now while they are a bargain.  The mere act of following his advice will advance women in the workplace and push up their perceived (work-effort) value. (Granted, he put up a stupid slide (LINK)).
.
Let us take an analogy.  If, instead of women, he said, “Programmers from Cal Berkeley are just as good as programmers from Stanford, and are cheaper.”  Would that be discriminatory against public university graduates?  (That was a rhetorical question;  the answer is no.)
.
As for pay discrimination, he isn’t advocating pay discrimination.  He is saying if you offer $100 of effort, you get more (or better) output from a woman than from a man in the current environment.  Discrimination is saying, “I will only hire men because a woman can’t do the job (or vice versa).”  Discrimination is not saying, “I will hire the best worker at the lowest price the market can bear. And you people who insist on hiring only men are throwing money away.”
.
An intellectual argument can be made that his statement (if not his business practices) are discriminatory.   However, by making that argument, you shut him up.  And he is a great advocate for women here.  He is calling out others as being stupid for NOT hiring women.
.
Let us judge his statement objectively, not through a lens of discrimination, for just a moment.  He is saying women are undervalued in the employment market in this field.  That is, actually, a message that I would think women want out in the marketplace.  Attacking him for it (as he was attacked if you read the article) isn’t going to change his language.  Instead, it has shut him up and the message is lost and possible female hires not touted as valuable.