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

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#141

Post by ubernostrum »

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?

I have a question: why does anyone think this tired soundbite is a smashing knock-down utterly destructive CHECKMATE FEMINISTS rebuttal when anyone who thinks about it for a moment can discover that

1. Advancement and representation in high-status positions has a strong normalizing effect which spreads beyond just those specific job titles, and

2. Plenty of people do acknowledge and want to encourage better gender balance in professions like nursing, teaching, etc.?

For someone who claims elsewhere to be making serious rebuttals, you're curiously resorting to some pathetically-weak talking points instead.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#142

Post by pron »

deepnotderp wrote: post #133
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 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.

I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care about this subject or you don't. And if you do, I hope you have the scientific curiosity to actually learn about it, and only then shape your opinions. Thankfully, after decades of study and action, we no longer need to convince the world that germs exist — the world now knows. So we no longer need you to listen; we have critical mass. You wish to remain spitefully ignorant? Be my guest. My comments are intended to those who are interested in learning, not to those who say, "thank you, but I'd rather take the word of some schmoe who knows nothing about the the subject he so vehemently writes about than spend some time actually learning about it from those who have".

I will, however, say this: Damore’s email is deeply misguided regardless of the merit of the couple of papers he cites (and must have run across in some conservative blog, as that is the extent of his real interest in the issue). It is basically a memo written by the owner of a chemical plant who dumps radioactive waste in a river, and claims that the pollution should not be stopped in spite of an increased incidence of cancer in the area by citing some papers showing that not all cancer is a result of exposure to radioactive waste.

And don’t worry, there's no need to learn any feminist theory; just some sociology and history, even at Wikipedia level. Anyway, I don't know why you put the word papers in scare quotes, as I don't think you have any idea as to what feminist theory is, and I don’t understand how you can ridicule something without even knowing what it is that you ridicule (I guess you’re basing your disdain on connotations you have of the name and maybe writings by others who have similarly not bothered to find out what feminist theory is before writing against it). And the fact that you, again, confuse sexist/racist with misogynistic/bigoted, shows that you don't even understand what the issue is, and instead wish to ridicule some strawman position that you imagine your imagined opponents possess.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#143

Post by pron »

deepnotderp wrote: post #134
pron wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What? No! After researchers having established, with thorough researched that's available for all to see, that women have been marginalized from positions of power -- which includes the tech industry, where women participation, in the US, has been declining in the past three decades or so -- we feminists demand that the practice stop. That's all.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#144

Post by kamaal »

k__ wrote: post #7

I don't understand this whole thing. Until recent years all developers I met were socially awkward men, me included. These are not the kind of people I would attribute any power to "crowd out" anyone. To me it seemed that they started doing computer stuff, because no one, including women, wanted to have anything to do with them. The "cool", way more aggressive, kids wanted to do sales, law, finance, management and st…

>>Until recent years all developers I met were socially awkward men, me included.

Actually this true of any area of work that is kind of relatively new with progress and overall scene changing very rapidly.

What you see in Tech, there are plenty of such examples in early Industrial revolution or Renaissance.

Most people only want to get in because their either want a job, or they think there is an element of easy money. Its only when the effort vs return equation becomes clear and you realize its way harder than you thought - The 'make it easy for me' chorus grows.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#145

Post by kamaal »

Edmond wrote: post #30
k__ wrote: post #7

I don't understand this whole thing. Until recent years all developers I met were socially awkward men, me included. These are not the kind of people I would attribute any power to "crowd out" anyone. To me it seemed that they started doing computer stuff, because no one, including women, wanted to have anything to do with them. The "cool", way more aggressive, kids wanted to do sales, law, finance, management and st…

The "socially awkward" archetype of a computer programmer I think is mostly a western (probably American) cultural artifact. For instance I have worked with a lot of Indian immigrants who are programmers and I don't find the correlation between social awkwardness and the people doing programming. While programming might be appealing to socially awkward western/American men , I don't think one should go from that to c…

>>The "socially awkward" archetype of a computer programmer I think is mostly a western (probably American) cultural artifact.

This conveniently condenses to one word - "Nerdism".

And this isn't restricted to Tech or the US.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#146

Post by pron »

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.

As I explained in another comment (chemical plant pollution), Damore is totally wrong regardless of the merit of the couple of papers he (a layman with zero knowledge or interest in the field) picked. My problem with that medium post is that an actual scientist shouldn't argue with some random dude on the internet who's clearly not interested in learning about the subject, while using actual science (and the very careful, measured wording that is common in this very inexact science). After all, anyone who chooses to believe someone as uncredentialed as Damore, and his explicit non-research in the first place, is unlikely to be persuaded by actual scholarship. I also

I would rather we stop treating Damore as someone other than a dude who wrote some memo in an afternoon. He did no original research, no secondary research, and expresses not a single idea we have not read hundreds of times since at least the eighteenth century. Just last week I read a text from 1795 by a Scottish minister who translated some of Leonhard Euler's work, where he says that maybe it's time people would stop repeating the claim that women are naturally incapable of doing science and using that as an excuse to exclude them from learning it.

I also think it is misguided to debate the effect size of biological causes just because Damore happened to say something about that, while not starting the discussion with the much better established social causes. Like my pollution analogy, we know social causes exist, we want to fix them as they cause harm, and once we do we can scientifically debate whether nature has indeed decided to imbue women, blacks and Asians with such flawed intelligence, and why the Jews and the French are so smarter than everyone.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#147

Post by mpweiher »

pron wrote: post #142
deepnotderp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care…

Read “The Blank Slate”.

Read/watch the Pinker/Spelke debate.

Etc.

The science here is pretty unambiguous, yes, just not in the direction you think.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#148

Post by mpweiher »

pron wrote: post #146
deepnotderp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I explained in another comment (chemical plant pollution), Damore is totally wrong regardless of the merit of the couple of papers he (a layman with zero knowledge or interest in the field) picked. My problem with that medium post is that an actual scientist shouldn't argue with some random dude on the internet who's clearly not interested in learning about the subject, while using actual science (and the very car…

When you have to lie about what your opponent is saying in order to score your points, you’re rarely in the right.

In fact, you may be missing that you are actually in agreement.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#149

Post by deepnotderp »

pron wrote: post #142
deepnotderp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care…

> If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care about this subject or you don't.

Two can play that game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#150

Post by pron »

mpweiher wrote: post #147
pron wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I have no inclination to do that. If you have a strong opinion on some subject which is based on things said by people who you know are not expert and have not researched it -- namely, your opinion is knowingly based on ignorance of the issue -- yet you can't be bothered to look up what the experts say on the matter, then I have no desire to educate those who don't wish to be educated. Either you care…

Read “The Blank Slate”. Read/watch the Pinker/Spelke debate. Etc. The science here is pretty unambiguous, yes, just not in the direction you think.

Oh, I have, because unlike you, I actually did study this subject seriously for some years.
Post reply on HN