Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

soledadpenades.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 375 posts

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

#361

Post by redthrowaway »

undersuit wrote: post #357
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?

>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?

Which might explain why men, who are far more motivated by money than women are, would seek to enter the field despite it being a much more difficult degree and arguably less rewarding career.

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

#362

Post by prodigal_erik »

nikdaheratik wrote: post #351
prodigal_erik wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the kind that's nearly impossible to do well, even for the right kind of freak. Software engineering needs a hell of a lot of systematizing and simplification before it's well enough understood that well-balanced adults can begin to accomplish something useful after simply studying it. We're still in the bloodletting-and-leeches phase of the profession.

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

#363

Post by rayiner »

redthrowaway wrote: post #360
rayiner wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pr…

> 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.

Yes that's my claim, and yes there is evidence for it: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-.... From 1970 to 2005, the proportion of women medical and law graduates went from 50-10% to nearly 50%. The proportion of computer science graduates went from 15% to 35% in 1985 but dropped below 20% in the 2000s.

There are only three possible explanations for that data. (1) certain industries got less sexist while computer science lagged behind; (2) society got less sexist about women going into certain industries; or (3) womens' biological preferences changed dramatically over just a few decades.

(3) is ridiculous, so the answer must be (1) or (2), which are both the product of sexism.

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

#364

Post by rhizome »

runeks wrote: post #350
rhizome wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't account for the fundamental attribution error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

The "fundamental attribution error" is a symptom of the very issue it itself is trying to solve: too much thinking. Thinking about why we think too much won't get us closer to a solution. The fundamental problem is believing every thought that pops into your mind. We do that when we're not conscious of thought. Whether a compulsive thought concerns "internal characteristics of a person" or "external factors of a situ…

No. The FAE essentially says that choice is stronger than luck. You can't choose your way to becoming the King or Queen of England and you can't choose your way out of being a black person in the US (e.g.'s all). Every point in your comment depended on choice, without considering that intractable circumstances that everybody lives within, for good or bad.

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

#365

Post by redthrowaway »

rayiner wrote: post #363
redthrowaway wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 pr…

> 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. Yes that's my claim, and yes there is evidence for it: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-... . From 1970 to 2005, the proportion of women medical and law graduates went from 50-10%…

(3) is ridiculous because it's an insane strawman that you set up solely to be ridiculous. You've defined any non-biological change in preferences as sexism. And if that's the definition you want to use, then "sexism" sounds like a perfectly normal and acceptable part of society.

You are claiming that physicists are sexist but biologists are not. You are claiming that philosophers are sexist but doctors are not. This is an incredible claim, that requires incredible evidence. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Conversely, I'm claiming that as women have become more free to pursue whatever career they want, they have self-selected into certain fields that appeal more to them than others do. This is a very common sense claim. It requires no special pleading or special evidence.

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

#366

Post by rayiner »

redthrowaway wrote: post #365
rayiner wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes that's my claim, and yes there is evidence for it: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-... . From 1970 to 2005, the proportion of women medical and law graduates went from 50-10%…

(3) is ridiculous because it's an insane strawman that you set up solely to be ridiculous. You've defined any non-biological change in preferences as sexism. And if that's the definition you want to use, then "sexism" sounds like a perfectly normal and acceptable part of society. You are claiming that physicists are sexist but biologists are not. You are claiming that philosophers are sexist but doctors are not. This…

> (3) is ridiculous because it's an insane strawman that you set up solely to be ridiculous.

No, (3) is insane because it implies that biologically-driven preferences can change dramatically in just a few decades.

> You've defined any non-biological change in preferences as sexism.

That's (2), not (3). And I'm not sure what else to call socialization that discourages a particular gender from pursuing a high-reward field like computer science. I'd certainly call it sexism for men to be socialized to avoid well-paying jobs in nursing.

> they have self-selected into certain fields that appeal more to them than others do.

Why do they prefer to forgo a field like computer science or engineering? Is it because it's mathematically intensive and detail oriented? In that case, how do you explain half of all accountants being women? Is it because women care less about making lots of money? But plenty of women go into medicine and law. The "women prefer to forgo a popular, well-paying field" theory only makes sense if you don't bother to ask "why?"

And it's hilarious that you keep criticizing me for not offering evidence, when your whole position seems rooted in "women prefer certain fields, because [???]". Seriously, what goes in that box?

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

#367

Post by redthrowaway »

rayiner wrote: post #366
redthrowaway wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(3) is ridiculous because it's an insane strawman that you set up solely to be ridiculous. You've defined any non-biological change in preferences as sexism. And if that's the definition you want to use, then "sexism" sounds like a perfectly normal and acceptable part of society. You are claiming that physicists are sexist but biologists are not. You are claiming that philosophers are sexist but doctors are not. This…

> (3) is ridiculous because it's an insane strawman that you set up solely to be ridiculous. No, (3) is insane because it implies that biologically-driven preferences can change dramatically in just a few decades. > You've defined any non-biological change in preferences as sexism. That's (2), not (3). And I'm not sure what else to call socialization that discourages a particular gender from pursuing a high-reward fi…

>No, (3) is insane because it implies that biologically-driven preferences can change dramatically in just a few decades.

That's the strawman. You've said either everything is sexism, or everything is biology. Then you've used the fact that clearly biological preferences have not changed in a couple decades to suggest it must therefore be sexism.

Somebody who's apparently a lawyer should be able to recognize how terrible that logic is. So you're either being disingenuous, or you haven't thought to examine your reasoning.

>And it's hilarious that you keep criticizing me for not offering evidence, when your whole position seems rooted in "women prefer certain fields, because [???]". Seriously, what goes in that box?

Your box: sexism, and only sexism.

My box: absolutely everything that goes into people having preferences for things.

Seriously, your reasoning here is atrocious. The null hypothesis is not "there is pervasive social discrimination against women that prevents them from entering this field", and yet that's what you leap to for all explanations for everything.

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

#368

Post by dredmorbius »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #38
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…

Digression: That's an old tired dead horse. When the minority organizes, somebody always calls 'double standard'. "They're racist/sexist too!" Forgetting these folks don't have the institutional power to harm others. Forgetting that the rest of the world is a de-facto mens/white/whatever club already. Lets just retreat to the ivory tower.

Punching up vs. punching down.

I'm still reflecting how I feel about this, though my inclination is to be forgiving to disempowered minorities -- or majorities.

It's not as if the empowered majority (or minorities) haven't, and don't, make use of similar organisations and tactics. There's something about balancing power which matters.

That said, I'm also somewhat leery of, say, exclusively gender-divided organisations. Contra: the National Organization for Women, which admits both women and men.

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

#369

Post by FungalRaincloud »

Wintamute wrote: post #191
belorn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women in tech are part of an out-group, just by being in the minority. A key insight I also saw in a study about gender equality in the teaching profession (done by the Swedish institute for higher education). If you are a male student entering a profession with 80% women, you are naturally going to doubt and question that decision. If you pass that first wave of doubt, you get hit by a second wave as soon the firs…

> The trend from the last 30 years has been steadily in the wrong direction, with more gender separation in the work force Interestingly this has been a trend most strongly observed in the most free, socially egalitarian and rich countries. In other words when men are women are most free to pick a career path they naturally self segregate. In countries that are less free and have more pressure to pick economically ef…

I am inclined to agree that it's not necessarily "wrong" - but mainly because I don't believe it to be a black and white issue. Self-segregation is beneficial to the individual - they feel like part of the group, and that reduces stress. But it certainly feels like there may be societal factors that force people to make that choice, and those may be negative. Likewise, diversity seems to me like something to be sought out. If I am only surrounded by people who are very much like me, I tend to only see problems from one perspective, or have my own personal biases reinforced.

As with most things, it is not as simple as "this is wrong." There's a lot to consider, and to me, it isn't the self-segregation that we should fight, but rather, it might be the case that we should fight the root cause of the desire to self-segregate.

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

#370

Post by FungalRaincloud »

Grishnakh wrote: post #241
FungalRaincloud wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see the studies you're referencing. However, taking what you're saying as truth (a thing I am reluctant to do), I still find it a big leap to claim that the reason that there are fewer women in tech is that fewer women are interested in tech, and I would still be inclined to believe that women in tech are at a disadvantage. Proving lack of interest seems difficult, at best - for instance, is it that w…

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…

While I agree with the premise that our culture is (at least partially) to blame, I want to clarify something about my post. When I use the word minority, I do not mean "there are fewer women. Rather, I mean it in the way that the census bureau would mean it: women are underrepresented in our society. There are fewer women in politics, and positions of power, than there are men. Women may outnumber us, but if they are not in positions of influence, where their needs and concerns are being represented, they still qualify as a minority. Minority is not exactly the best word to use, because it conjures that image of a small group standing up to a big group, but it is the common parlance term for the idea of a group that is underrepresented in our society, unfortunately.
Post reply on HN