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

How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 258 posts

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#131

Post by mdorazio »

abalone wrote: post #90
mdorazio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been my question as well, and few people want to consider it. The best data I've been able to find on actual gender split over that period only goes through 1996 [1] - just when the dotcom bubble was getting going. However, if you look at total CS degrees (look under "The third surge" in [2]) it at least seems pretty obvious what happened. Right around 1980 the number of CS degree students exploded, with men…

> it seems like men just got more interested in the field for a variety of reasons and naturally came to massively outnumber the women... it's hard to argue a systemic push against women in science degrees when CS is pretty much the only one with an increasing gender imbalance This is a bad premise. What sets CS apart from most sciences, and correlates perfectly with the 80s, is that it became a professional path to…

Sorry, I don't see how that's a bad premise. Men are more drawn to career paths with prestige and high earnings than are women. That's one reason in the "variety of reasons" I said. You seem to be saying that because CS became a path to a lucrative profession, therefore women were forced out en mass via artificial obstacles. But that's assuming ill intent when there doesn't need to be any to explain the difference. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I do think that the degree to which the current gender imbalance is due to the mechanisms in the article is largely overstated.

Let's shift it around another way and do a thought experiment. Public school teachers in the US today are overwhelmingly female and also rather poorly paid. What if tomorrow all the states decided that the starting salary for new teachers would be a minimum of $100k, and you would no longer need a teaching license. Do you think we wouldn't see more men suddenly entering the profession of public school teaching and dropping the percentage of women? I certainly think we would. Does that necessarily mean that men would be actively sabotaging women to keep them out of teaching entirely?

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#132

Post by pron »

deepnotderp wrote: post #130
pron wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, it's a report written by actual experts on the subject, and one that actually cites more than two sources, not all of them affirming the same point of view. It’s not the Principia, but it’s scholarly work, and a hundredfold better than some rant written by some random guy who has not studied the subject at all, not even as an amateur. But if it’s not to your liking, you’re welcome to go down the list on…

I have a question. How come the brouhaha is always about tech jobs but never about bricklaying? As a corollary, how come it's always okay that there are far more female nurses but immediately sexism when it comes to less females in tech?

Very simple: As a first approximation, we are concerned about women being marginalized from positions of power, not about them being underrepresented in any particular profession. Tech (and politics, law, finance, entertainment, journalism, medicine and upper management) is a position of power; bricklaying, nursing and k-12 education aren't (it's not necessarily an intrinsic property of the professions, but rather an empirical observation). Sexism (and racism) is an unequal distribution of power; feminism is simply the attempt to rectify that. That's the whole story in a nutshell.

However, you will find concern over the lack of women in construction, as well as the lack of male nurses. This is due to less direct effects on power distribution. E.g., some of the power that a profession endows on its practitioners is related to its perceived prestige, and it's known that an over representation of women in a profession lowers its prestige -- another sexist effect -- and therefore its power. When it comes to construction work and other "low power" blue-collar professions, I believe that the desire to increase women participation is mainly due to a general desire to reduce (though not necessarily eliminate) the gender association of professions in general.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#133

Post by deepnotderp »

pron wrote: post #124
mpweiher wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...a "report" created by and for an advocacy group. Which links very tenuous studies about performance on tests to interest in tech by...nothing. And of course it doesn't address what I think is the elephant in the room: how can people be so arrogant as to claim that all the women flooding into other fields don't know what they want? "You poor girl, you may think you like early childhood education, but you're delu…

First of all, it's a report written by actual experts on the subject, and one that actually cites more than two sources, not all of them affirming the same point of view. It’s not the Principia, but it’s scholarly work, and a hundredfold better than some rant written by some random guy who has not studied the subject at all, not even as an amateur. But if it’s not to your liking, you’re welcome to go down the list on…

I have neither the time nor inclination to go through feminist theory "papers" or the related "scholarly papers" about how the tech world is obviously sexist/misogynistic/racist/bigoted/etc.

You said that Damore's view was held as wrong as by the "majority view".

Where is the "majority view" point by point rebuttal of Damore's memo?

Give me that and I will listen.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#134

Post by deepnotderp »

pron wrote: post #132
deepnotderp wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a question. How come the brouhaha is always about tech jobs but never about bricklaying? As a corollary, how come it's always okay that there are far more female nurses but immediately sexism when it comes to less females in tech?

Very simple: As a first approximation, we are concerned about women being marginalized from positions of power, not about them being underrepresented in any particular profession. Tech (and politics, law, finance, entertainment, journalism, medicine and upper management) is a position of power; bricklaying, nursing and k-12 education aren't (it's not necessarily an intrinsic property of the professions, but rather an…

> Very simple: As a first approximation, we are concerned about women being marginalized from positions of power, not about them being underrepresented in any particular profession.

...

I think that's all I need to know here. So feminists think that it's okay to go into an industry and demand that there be more women because it is a "powerful industry"? And somehow those of us who support Damore are the unreasonable ones?

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#135

Post by abalone »

mdorazio wrote: post #131
abalone wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems like men just got more interested in the field for a variety of reasons and naturally came to massively outnumber the women... it's hard to argue a systemic push against women in science degrees when CS is pretty much the only one with an increasing gender imbalance This is a bad premise. What sets CS apart from most sciences, and correlates perfectly with the 80s, is that it became a professional path to…

Sorry, I don't see how that's a bad premise. Men are more drawn to career paths with prestige and high earnings than are women. That's one reason in the "variety of reasons" I said. You seem to be saying that because CS became a path to a lucrative profession, therefore women were forced out en mass via artificial obstacles. But that's assuming ill intent when there doesn't need to be any to explain the difference. I…

Your thought experiment doesn't go far enough. The issue is not merely that men entered the previously female-dominated programming profession, it is that they now dominate it overwhelmingly.

Consider that if as you believe men are more motivated to seek higher-paying positions, that would actually incentivize them to throw up obstacles to female competition. If the teaching profession suddenly shifted to mostly-male upon raising salaries, it would be correct to examine if sexism was at work. If we found marketing campaigns like "are you the man to command a classroom", "aptitude" tests that discriminated against women, and male-dominated professional societies acting as gatekeepers (to use some historical examples from our industry), they could very well lead to a significant gender imbalance.

A much more plausible explanation, at least, than women magically becoming disinterested in teaching because they have an aversion to making lots of money...

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#136

Post by danharaj »

mpweiher wrote: post #108
danharaj wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question in good faith: have you ever read a serious, rigorous exchange of criticism in any field like philosophy or politics? Because what I described is literally par for the course in critical thinking. If Damore and his ilk want to participate in an honest critical debate then their arguments are sure as fuck going to be analyzed the same way everyone's arguments are analyzed in every serious intellectuall…

He wasn't participating in a rigorous exchange of criticism in philosophy or politics. >Because what I described is literally par for the course in critical thinking. No, what you described is completely arbitrary. > his ilk Right, "rigorous" and "critical" debate. No pure ad-hominems to see here. Move along. > every serious intellectually rigorous setting. Er, no. Just making shit up and attributing it to your oppon…

> He wasn't participating in a rigorous exchange of criticism in philosophy or politics.

Um, his memo was intrinsically political. The matters of policy of a company are political matters. Therefore it is completely valid to scrutinize it politically and of course at a serious level which integrates it into the surrounding context.

> No, what you described is completely arbitrary.

No, not really. If it was completely arbitrary then I would be considering things like "Well James Damore didn't mention the ongoing debate on ham and pineapple pizza and clearly shows his bias in doing so". There is an inherent context to his memo that is completely obvious to everyone involved as evidenced by the fact that literally every side in the discussion involving it makes some sort of connection to that context.

On the side defending him, usually calling people who condemn his memo as irrational or the intolerant left, or some-such hostile dismissal.

> Right, "rigorous" and "critical" debate. No pure ad-hominems to see here. Move along.

Ad hominem is "James Damore is a doofus, therefore he's wrong". "James Damore is wrong, and because he is wrong in this way, he's a doofus", on the other hand, is not ad hominem. The only thing more odious than whipping out the latin is doing it incorrectly. From all the digital ink spilled on the topic, I have concluded that there are only a very small group of people defending him that earnestly consider the idea that he fucked up. The most common discourse is to simply presume that he didn't and then demand that everyone engage with him and his memo on their terms. Yawn.

> Just making shit up and attributing it to your opponent is the opposite of "intellectually" rigorous. It maybe ideologically rigorous, but that's about it.

James Damore's arguments are neither novel nor exemplary. The fact that he A) insists that he's being shut out of conversation and B) proceeds to make the same exact argument that has been discussed ad nauseum without bringing anything new to the table is telling. Everyone has already met a James Damore; they don't need another.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#137

Post by mdorazio »

abalone wrote: post #135
mdorazio wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I don't see how that's a bad premise. Men are more drawn to career paths with prestige and high earnings than are women. That's one reason in the "variety of reasons" I said. You seem to be saying that because CS became a path to a lucrative profession, therefore women were forced out en mass via artificial obstacles. But that's assuming ill intent when there doesn't need to be any to explain the difference. I…

Your thought experiment doesn't go far enough. The issue is not merely that men entered the previously female-dominated programming profession, it is that they now dominate it overwhelmingly. Consider that if as you believe men are more motivated to seek higher-paying positions, that would actually incentivize them to throw up obstacles to female competition. If the teaching profession suddenly shifted to mostly-male…

I feel like we're talking about different things here. I'm saying that it's entirely plausible for one gender to come to dominate a profession simply because that profession aligns with their interests moreso than do the alternative professions available. More interest from one gender means more individuals of that gender, in absolute numbers, seeking to make themselves qualified candidates for the profession. More qualified candidates from one gender applying to open positions means statistically you're going to end up hiring more of that gender on average. The starting gender ratio has nothing to do with it if the profession is small in the beginning and expands massively in just a few decades.

Again, I'm not saying women were not discriminated against (and continue to be subject to bias), but I don't buy that this is the primary reason why we have a large gender imbalance today.

Here's another question for you - medicine and law were massively male-dominated for a very long time, and yet both of those professions are now far closer to gender parity than tech is. Are we to believe that the anti-women practices that forced women out of tech were simply never applied to these other professions to keep women out? If so, why is tech a unique industry for this?

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#138

Post by ubernostrum »

mpweiher wrote: post #92
pron wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are conservative publications, which is fine, but: There are certainly some researchers, like those in the first article, who agree with Damore's position, but they are by far the minority; if you're interested in the subject, I suggest you at least read some research written by the majority opinion. The second link is written by a non-expert, and therefore does not constitute a scholarly opinion at all. I occas…

Hmm...where is this "majority opinion"? So far I haven't seen a single article opposing him that didn't (have to) resort to crass misrepresentation of what he actually wrote, when it even bothered at all. If you have to lie about your opponent, you're probably not in the right.

Here is a long and well-cited piece which explains what's wrong with his allegations of "science" backing up his arguments:

https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot...

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#139

Post by deepnotderp »

ubernostrum wrote: post #138
mpweiher wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm...where is this "majority opinion"? So far I haven't seen a single article opposing him that didn't (have to) resort to crass misrepresentation of what he actually wrote, when it even bothered at all. If you have to lie about your opponent, you're probably not in the right.

Here is a long and well-cited piece which explains what's wrong with his allegations of "science" backing up his arguments: https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot...

Yes, I saw that. It is yet another of the posts which basically say "the science is not saying that the differences are 100% certain, so somehow that means that Damore is totally wrong".

I actually did a half-way pickthrough of that post on twitter, not gonna repeat it here. Annoying enough with 140-character per message limitation. I'm done with this memo.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#140

Post by ubernostrum »

deepnotderp wrote: post #139
ubernostrum wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a long and well-cited piece which explains what's wrong with his allegations of "science" backing up his arguments: https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot...

Yes, I saw that. It is yet another of the posts which basically say "the science is not saying that the differences are 100% certain, so somehow that means that Damore is totally wrong". I actually did a half-way pickthrough of that post on twitter, not gonna repeat it here. Annoying enough with 140-character per message limitation. I'm done with this memo.

Well, Damore made some strongly-worded and poorly-cited claims in an attempt to pass off his "science" as somehow uncontroversial and irrefutable. The fact that multiple people have chimed in pointing out that A) it's very far from uncontroversial/irrefutable and B) his arguments are based on studies whose effect sizes would not produce the results we see, is a pretty convincing rebuttal.

Also it's telling that "the differences are not 100% certain" is your comment while it's still taken by people on the internet to mean "Damore was absolutely right about everything ever and we should all stop diversity efforts since women are too hobbled by their genetic ladybrains to work in tech in large numbers anyway".

Post reply on HN