“Why do women try to get ahead by pulling men down?”

This is a really great set of analogies that pokes holes in a lot of arguments you often see. There is another one I'd like to add that's very relevant for tech: women come into the lobby of the engineering school building, see the pack of men on the up escalator, see the room full of men who have already made it, and head straight back out the door and over to the med school or law school building, where they don't have to deal with the headwinds that come from being a minority. A lot of the women who see the situation and leave are the most talented and ambitious, because lets face it: if you're gunning for the top, isn't it rational to give yourself the best possible shot by choosing a field where you won't have the challenge of fitting into a male-dominated culture in addition to all the challenges you'll already have?

Interesting metaphor, but the author could've substituted "women" with "blacks", "hispanics", or any non-white male demographic and the article would've had the same effect.<p>Look, as a black male startup founder I recognize I face a steeper uphill battle than my white counterparts. I get that. But I also understand that anytime anyone tries to break into an industry dominated by people unlike them, they're going to face resistance.<p>For example, white rappers have a far more difficult time breaking into hip hop. Its almost a requirement that their talent surpasses that of black rappers by leaps and bounds. They diligently practice their craft, writing witty punchlines and metaphors, using complex wordplay, (i.e. running up the 'down' elevator) while many black rappers lazily write nursery rhymes about the same tired subjects, (i.e. standing still on the 'up' elevator). I'm certain there are many white guys who get to the lobby, and upon seeing a sea of blacks riding the 'up' elevator, simply say, "Forget this, I'm gonna go learn some Python"<p>The fact is when you're a minority of any kind, (and I don't mean in terms of race, I mean in terms of any characteristic that makes you outside the majority) you should be prepared to fight for every inch.<p>Besides, when faced with the choice, I usually choose to take the stairs anyway. :-)

I was hoping that they would complete the analogy. I was unable to make these connections: (please fill in!)<p>1. What is the reason the women's escalator goes down?<p>2. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?<p>3. What is the elevator?<p>4. Why not just make everyone take the elevator? Why have a restricted running arrangement at all? Why not just have organized one-at-a-time races on a 100m track with a photo finish setup?

<i>A lot of men (and sometimes women) ... [say] “So you’re saying that in order for women to get ahead, they have to pull men down?! That’s not fair!”</i><p>I have never heard anyone say anything like this quote. Maybe I'm in an unusual workplaces, or I haven't been listening closely enough. Does this resemble a real statement in the gender inequality dialog?

This is perhaps a tangential issue, but I don't think the author addressed the question she posed.<p>I was looking forward to seeing the author thoroughly dissect the ignorance inherent in the title, so I followed along with the methaphor as it lengthened. I also didn't object to the metaphor presuming the conclusions she set out to make, since metaphors are expository instruments intended to clarify and shed light on a complex underlying issue. But when I skimmed to the end and saw that she never moved on from the metaphor to an actual argument, I lost interest. A metaphor <i>is not</i> an argument. It can be a great way to introduce or conclude one, but it should never be the main course at an idea buffet.

First let me start by saying that I believe my wife can do absolutely anything she sets her mind to accomplishing. She has her masters degree while I do not even have a bachelors.<p>However, these articles ignore the obvious difference between men and women. I (a guy) am interested in cars, computer games(FPS), working out, running, playing sports etc. My wife on the other hand is absolutely interested in all of those at a different level than I an interested in other things that I do not particularly enjoy like horseback riding. When I say she's interested in cars, she's interested in having a nice corvette, while I'm interested in working on a nice corvette. She likes working out, to be fit - I like working out to get stronger and more 'manly'. She loves to play sports because they're fun - I like to crush the other team.<p>I bring these things up because there are inherent differences between men and women that people seem to forget. It's not just nurture, but it's nature too. We are physically, mentally and emotionally different (not in all cases, but many).<p>I would love to see more women in the tech industry (I'm trying to get my wife involved). However, there will always be a difference in our mentalities because of our gender and these cannot be ignored so easily.

I mostly like the article, but the author and I have a different perspective on a basic assumption that is taken as axiomatic in the third paragraph: <i>Let’s say that all the jobs in tech are in a room on the second floor of a building. There are a limited number of people that can fit in that room.</i><p>I don't personally believe there are a fixed number of spots. I believe that when you find a way to cram more people into the second floor, it expands.<p>A company may seem like it is only hiring five engineers today, but companies that hire good people, grow. Companies operating in an environment where more people are working, can sell more of their products and services.<p>Overall, more people being more productive expands the number of "spots on the second floor" for everyone.<p>Thus, I do not consider this an issue of choosing which people make it up the escalator, but rather a problem in trying to grow the size of the building. When looked at it in terms of growing the size of the building, we arrive at a completely different view of how we should handle escalators and the purpose of getting people to the second floor.

This is a horrible analogy. It sounds really pretty at first glance, but the question is never addressed as to why that's the situation to begin with. In real life, everybody can equally use an escalator. Does the up escalator have a sign saying "Men only?" No. Are men pushing women down? No. What is preventing women from using the up escalator?<p>Maybe the real question is why her analogous women are looking for elevators and going up the wrong escalator instead of just doing it the way everyone else is?

I have an anecdote to share - the university in which I was supposed to study CS before coming to my senses and realizing I know more than the tutors had strict 50/50 gender admission policy. The acceptance was based purely on exam results (only math). So that friend of mine (a girl) is ranked among the top - no surprises there. After she is accepted she decides she prefers to study electronics and according to rules the first girl that was left out gets the place. The problem is there are 18 with one and the same score - so they accept them all.<p>What was curious was that the average acceptance score of the admitted girls was higher than for the boys. So the gender policy actually ended discriminating the girls - fewer were admitted than would have been if gender quotas were lifted. That was across the board in all engineering specialties and a few years in a row.

"It's important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy." - Elon Musk.<p>the author should have stated the first principles that are fundamentally true and then state her hypothesis of the employment market and justify them. she makes far too much assumptions without justifying them.

This is one of the worst analogies I have even been exposed too. It is a straightforward issue, we don't need an analogy to grasp it, it was almost explicitly designed to muddy the waters.<p>It did a good job of hiding circle reasoning, logical fallacies and other failures of critical thinking.<p>EDIT: I do believe there is a real issue around gender in both the technology and nursing industries. This article just adds nothing to the conversation.

This is how the stereotype of men not getting metaphors gets started.

&#62; mostly white<p>stopped reading there

I went looking for some examples of male privilege. These might be helpful in understanding why the escalators are going the directions they are: <a href="http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf</a>

That was a really tortured metaphor.

I think the premise is absurd. In two decades programming I've never personally seen evidence of women being held back in CS -- usually it's just the opposite in fact. I'd like for there to be more women in CS, but being honest I haven't seen anything holding them back except for themselves.<p>For instance even way back in my CS program for one of the women they actually made an exception to the rule that you need a 2.0 GPA to graduate in CS. This after years of official department women-only support groups and special instruction. What happened to the guys with less than 2.0? They didn't graduate CS. This same woman had six job offers after graduation.

&#62; 2. What is the reason only men can ride the up escalator?<p>I never got past this. I would imagine that in a two-story building full of analytical people, someone would have questioned this immediately.

Breadwinner in 40% of U.S. Families Is a Woman, Study Finds[1]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-family-breadwinner-on-the-rise-study-says.html?hp" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/business/economy/women-as-...</a>

In OP's analogy, a new male applicant has no edge over a new female applicant. He's still faced with an overcrowded escalator. In the real world, things can be quite different of course, and the analogy doesn't reflect that very well.

49 minutes old, and no longer on the front page.<p>I can't find it in the first 200 submissions, even.

all I got from article is implication that somehow women are less skilled (slower in article) otherwise they would be on up escalator as well? I certainly don't agree with that implication.

<i>If more men learned to put away their privilege</i><p>Stopped me cold. Maybe that mindset worked in the 1960s but this is the twenty-teens and that "privilege" left long ago.

I think the idea's good but the analogy presented is ridiculous.<p>As far as I could see, there isn't an escalator reserved for only men and one that is reserved for only women. The article touches on women having to use the one that is usually going down, and I kind of understand that to mean they are presented with extra difficulties, but in the given situation if someone wants a job more than the others and tries to climb the harder escalator, I believe that deserves a round of applause whether it's a man or a woman.<p>Another problem is that being most skilled is equated to being the fastest in the analogy. Here's where things go hard to explain without offending anyone but I'll try to take my chances. Just keep in mind that I'm not against females in any industry. If the real world is like the analogy and females can't get a tech job because they aren't as fast as men, then it is a good thing. Being a women is nothing special. For every woman who can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough, I bet there are 2 or more men who also can't get a job because they aren't skilled enough compared to others. I don't see men complaining in this situation. And to be perfectly honest I myself have lived through something like this recently. I am a very new comer to the programming world and I was turned down on my application to GSoC. I didn't think of trying to find nonexistent reasons, I knew it was because I was good enough (yet). From what I've been reading about female take on these situations, I'm led to believe that about half of them (or perhaps even more) would think that they were turned down because they are not male.<p>What I mean to say is that the article inherently implies that there are so many fast men that women can't get a job. I believe that is warping the truth to make people feel sorry into women. I'll most likely be crucified for saying this, but I would be glad if an unskilled woman can't get a job because there are more skilled men, I say that's a good thing. (I have long learned that the internet community and extreme feminists like to cherry pick on what you say while missing your point just to make a case against you, so I'll say that I would also be happy if the reverse is true, that is a man gets turned down because he isn't skilled enough).<p>And the last thing. The article mentions women who see that the escalator is overflowing with men largely turn around and not even try. This is a very female-centric approach. Men don't see something entirely else magically, they also see the escalator flowing with men. If anyone, male or female, turns around because the escalator is overflowing, then s/he does not want the job enough, s/he wants an easy ride.<p>This part of the analogy both degrades women and shows something entirely unlikable about the author's view. It implies that most women give up in the face of difficulty (the difficulty being that there are too many men). If that is the case this is not a case that can be argued against male domination in any industry. If women want to be represented more, then they should try more. Keep in mind this is assuming that what the author is implying.<p>And the author's silent implication (which is very offensive to me) that women should have a women only escalator that will overflow with women in time.<p>Go ahead, crucify me because this apparently is against what most people defend but it is important to keep everything fair while defending women's positions.