Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#351

Post by nikdaheratik » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:56 AM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #237

onetwotree wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer women are interested because they don't want to work, go to school, and socialize in sexist environments. While I'm sure that not all "tech environments" are sexist, enough of them are to convince women not to pursue careers in this field. That's a disadvantage, especially because tech careers are luxury careers these days.

I spent a lot of my teenage years hunched over a Commodore 64 Programmer's Reference Guide. The "environment" was me and a computer that didn't care about my sex. Certainly nobody encouraged me, least of all my friends and family. Where were the teenage girls who shared my obsession? For that matter, where are the women who hack for fun and ignore the shit the industry is up to?

My issue with this is simply: what kind of profession is this if you have to decide you want to "join up" as a teenager or you're shut out for the rest of your adult life? I was pretty obsessed in my youth, and I didn't have nearly the toolset available to kids today, but we need to move past this teenage hacker stereotype if we want to attract more attention from serious, well-balanced adults on career day.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#352

Post by imron » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:59 AM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #337

imron wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hun...

was reinstated, is a professor of immunology at the same university.

Do you have a source for that? All I can find (from Wikipedia) is that he was forced to resign from three positions he held, and that he was reappointed to one.

There's another article from a news source I don't particularly trust saying he was offered a new position in Japan.

Either way, even if he's doing fine now it was months of upheaval and a dedicated witch-hunt over comments that were taken completely out of context.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#353

Post by dang » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 7:05 AM UTC

liberale wrote: post #304

dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sleight of hand. Even supposing all that "data" to be accurate, you assume your conclusion by acting as if you know what the reason for it is. But, as we all know, nothing is more highly disputed. This is not the way to an open-minded and open-hearted discussion about the truth; it's a tangent to yet another generic ideological flamewar. That violates the HN guidelines. Since you've done this repeatedly befor…

What why? The SAT scores provided by the parent comment is official data. It is not "data" as you connote it to be. Just follow the Government stats linked he published. The conclusion of the parent comment is not unwarranted. Tech companies pride themselves in hiring only the best and there is strong statistical correlation between SAT scores or any other standardization test vs academic/professional performance. Te…

That's not what that comment argued.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#354

Post by noir_lord » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 12:30 PM UTC

pmiller2 wrote: post #259

noir_lord wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add me to that list. All I want from a workplace is a good computer, somewhere quiet to work (preferably with a door but I don't want to spark that debate, it's tiresome), an efficient manager who ensures a) everyone knows what they should be doing b) communicates a) effectively c) clears obstacles. I never found it so I started a company (of which I'm one of two employees), it's not without challenges but it largely…

What are these "doors" that you speak of? I've seen them on the entrances to conference rooms and, of course, to get in the office itself, but I can't imagine why anyone would want one for themselves. ;) Are you hiring? (I'm only somewhat joking there. I'd practically kill for a small office of my own.)

This my office - http://imgur.com/a/H7fxb

I've never measured it but it's around 300sq/ft, anyone I employee in the future (one day..) will get at least that much space, a budget to buy whatever computer gear they want and can have any desk/chair they want (I'll even build them one).

The cost of that stuff to the cost of a developer salary is a rounding error - I understand the stupid reasons companies skimp on that stuff but they are just that stupid.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#355

Post by Grishnakh » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

slededit wrote: post #320

Grishnakh wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except women frequently are a majority, not a minority. In the US, 60% of college students now are female. They just don't go into technical professions. From what I've gathered from being around different women and talking to them, I think all this talk about being "disadvantaged" is missing the real root causes. They actually are disadvantaged, but the problem isn't the workforce, fellow college students, etc., nea…

> If you really want to fix the problem with women in tech, you need to take all female children away from their parents and raise them in state-run facilities where they're taught that they actually can do math and play with toys that aren't dolls and pursue careers in these fields. Somehow, I doubt this suggestion will be seriously considered.... Been tried throughout history. It almost never works and is as horrif…

Yeah, I hope it was obvious that I wasn't seriously advocating that. I'm just pointing out how this stuff is embedded into our society, and it's hard to root out without taking extreme measures (which will likely have even worse unintended effects).

Also, it doesn't help that most of our kids seem to be raised by people who are either uneducated and poor (and thus don't pass on to girls the idea that they can get an education too and be good at math), or by people who are conservative and/or religious (and who actively discourage girls from doing well in math and science because of their traditional sexist values). The people who do have liberal values about this stuff aren't having kids (or not very many), so we just have this almost religious belief that our liberal values will somehow pass to these kids through societal conditioning (which they do to a certain extent thanks to the media and internet).

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#356

Post by cloudjacker » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:10 PM UTC

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #347

cloudjacker wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its not about their success, it is about other women looking for inspiration from people that may have encountered the same adversity as them, and only finding the people that talk about being women

You would be right if the narrative was "It was super hard, it was unfair, but I worked my ass off and I succeeded regardless." But that's not the case. The narrative is "There are less women in tech. The companies should be ashamed, and they should hire more women." There's a big difference. The former is actually inspirational because the it lets people know they can succeed despite the hard reality.

I would be inclined to agree with you if I didn't already agree with you

You are debating my counterpoint as I can see this issue from the perspectives of other people

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#357

Post by undersuit » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:20 PM UTC

redthrowaway wrote: post #192

jordigh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pointless to argue about whom to blame as it is to defend oneself against accusations of blame. Fix the problem, not the blame. If there is no gender parity, there is a problem. You didn't do it, I didn't do it, but it still needs to be fixed.

>If there is no gender parity, there is a problem. This seems to be an extraordinary claim made in the complete absence of evidence. Is it a problem that there are more women going into early childhood education or biology, but more men going into petroleum engineering? Why? Why aren't men and women allowed to express their preferences without it being pathologized?

>Is it a problem that there are more women going into early childhood education or biology, but more men going into petroleum engineering?

Don't the petroleum engineers make more money than the average biologist?

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#358

Post by undersuit » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

kaeluka wrote: post #34

btilly wrote: post #23

I personally know several successful professional women who have a policy of refusing to belong to any women-only groups. Their reason is that in their experience such groups are populated by people seeking reassurance. The result is that they offer the "support" of lowered expectations. Which won't help you succeed. One also pointed out to me that if a group of men were to form a men's only business club, that would…

> would be seen as sexist. "would be seen" talks about everyone, and I obviously can't speak for everyone. I'll try to anyway: A men-only club would be judged differently since men are perceived to be the privileged class -- a concern would be that in this club, unfairly obtained advantages are carried on. A women-only club is much less of an issue, because women are perceived to be disadvantaged as-is. Having them o…

>Having them organise in a secret circle won't cause any damage.

Are you stating a fact or is this part of the thoughts of society in general?

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#359

Post by kaeluka » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #358

kaeluka wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would be seen as sexist. "would be seen" talks about everyone, and I obviously can't speak for everyone. I'll try to anyway: A men-only club would be judged differently since men are perceived to be the privileged class -- a concern would be that in this club, unfairly obtained advantages are carried on. A women-only club is much less of an issue, because women are perceived to be disadvantaged as-is. Having them o…

>Having them organise in a secret circle won't cause any damage. Are you stating a fact or is this part of the thoughts of society in general?

Part of thoughts of society (as I perceive them). I, personally, have no clear opinion.

Re: Why I won’t give talks about being a woman in tech

#360

Post by redthrowaway » Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #322

redthrowaway wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If there is no gender parity, there is a problem. This seems to be an extraordinary claim made in the complete absence of evidence. Is it a problem that there are more women going into early childhood education or biology, but more men going into petroleum engineering? Why? Why aren't men and women allowed to express their preferences without it being pathologized?

> Why aren't men and women allowed to express their preferences without it being pathologized? Because those preferences are mostly the result of sexism. In 1970, there was no law against women being doctors or lawyers in 1970, yet less than 15% of graduates in those professions were women. Many people said the exact same thing you're saying now: oh, these are just natural preferences and aptitudes. Yet today, women…

>Because those preferences are mostly the result of sexism

Another extraordinary claim made in the complete absence of evidence.

Are you claiming that men and women don't have different preferences? Are you claiming that Iran, where 70% of engineering students are women, is less sexist than the US?

>Yet today, women make up 50% of graduates in those professions? Did something change in their genetics? Or did those professions just become less sexist?

So medicine, law, education, biology, veterinary science, and chemistry got less sexist, but philosophy, physics, and engineering didn't. That's your claim. That you've made, again, without a shred of evidence.