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

201–210 of 258 posts

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#201

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #200
tptacek wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth sciences. Chemistry. Biochemistry. Math (for Christ's sake). Astronomy. Statistics. Evolutionary biology. Neuroscience. Molecular biology. All double-digits better (some have actual parity) in female representation than computer science, which shares its gender disparity distinction with only two other (generally defined) STEM fields: ee/mech engineering and physics. Nobody is disputing that women are less inte…

> They clearly are. What is obvious to some of us is that the reason for that disinterest is that the field is hostile to them. Oh yes, hostility manifested by half-century old magazine ads or phrases like "cowboy coder." If they're allowing their career paths to be altered by innocuous stuff like that, or what a teacher might have told them, I don't think they want it that badly. There are no qualified women banging…

No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread, and now that I've taken the time to clarify it, you've decided to respond to an earlier comment I didn't write. If you'd like to keep discussing this with me, you're going to either have to rebut what I said, or acknowledge it.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#202

Post by rhapsodic »

tptacek wrote: post #201
rhapsodic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They clearly are. What is obvious to some of us is that the reason for that disinterest is that the field is hostile to them. Oh yes, hostility manifested by half-century old magazine ads or phrases like "cowboy coder." If they're allowing their career paths to be altered by innocuous stuff like that, or what a teacher might have told them, I don't think they want it that badly. There are no qualified women banging…

No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread, and now that I've taken the time to clarify it, you've decided to respond to an earlier comment I didn't write. If you'd like to keep discussing this with me, you're going to either have to rebut what I said, or acknowledge it.

> No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread

Could you clarify? In every one of my replies to you in this thread, the part I quoted came directly from the post (of yours) to which I replied. And where did I directly challenge any of your statements? I think you have me mixed up with someone else who responded to you.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#203

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #202
tptacek wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread, and now that I've taken the time to clarify it, you've decided to respond to an earlier comment I didn't write. If you'd like to keep discussing this with me, you're going to either have to rebut what I said, or acknowledge it.

> No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread Could you clarify? In every one of my replies to you in this thread, the part I quoted came directly from the post (of yours) to which I replied. And where did I directly challenge any of your statements? I think you have me mixed up with someone else who responded to you.

You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. You re-rebutted Rayiner's original comment without acknowledging mine. Acknowledge it or rebut it; don't pretend you didn't see it.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#204

Post by deepnotderp »

DanBC wrote: post #193
deepnotderp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far less than women in tech programs. And the key difference (at least for me) is that these programs encourage men and don't accuse women of coordinated sexism. By contrast, the women in tech movement is happy to paint us all sexist.

You are a sexist, so why do you care if people say you are?

Of course I'm a sexist. That's what everyone who doesn't agree with you is. Just like Pinker and everyone else...

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#205

Post by deepnotderp »

mpweiher wrote: post #197
pron wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is asking the tech industry to hire more women engineers than there are graduates. It might just be nice to have a bit fewer women report such horrible experiences working in the industry, so that maybe we'll have more graduates, which everybody should agree is a good thing.

> No one is asking the tech industry to hire more women engineers than there are graduates Factually wrong. > horrible experiences The plural of anecdote is not data. Here is some data: ACM survey: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-... Overall, women report slightly higher support from companies then men do. Women Leaving Engineering: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_Stemming%20the%20…

SEXIST.

/s

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#206

Post by rhapsodic »

tptacek wrote: post #203
rhapsodic wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread Could you clarify? In every one of my replies to you in this thread, the part I quoted came directly from the post (of yours) to which I replied. And where did I directly challenge any of your statements? I think you have me mixed up with someone else who responded to you.

You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. You re-rebutted Rayiner's original comment without acknowledging mine. Acknowledge it or rebut it; don't pretend you didn't see it.

> You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you thought naming a handful of other STEM fields along with a rough participation ratio made your premise any more meaningful.

You seem to think that, from the fact that women participate in other STEM fields at a greater rate than CS, you can infer the reason they aren't well-represented in software development. To you, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them." And others who share your view have defined "the field" so broadly as to include boys in jr. high school computer clubs.

Well, to me at least, it's "obvious" that your logic there is faulty.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#207

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #206
tptacek wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. You re-rebutted Rayiner's original comment without acknowledging mine. Acknowledge it or rebut it; don't pretend you didn't see it.

> You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you thought naming a handful of other STEM fields along with a rough participation ratio made your premise any more meaningful. You seem to think that, from the fact that women participate…

I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields".

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#208

Post by deepnotderp »

pron wrote: post #185
naasking wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1987 study found 700 out of 480,000 Earth and life scientists don't believe in evolution. Are you suggesting these gender topics have a comparable consensus ratio? If so, evidence of this consensus should be trivial for you to produce. So go ahead, I firmly believe attacking the strongest opposing argument, and I'm only interested in facts. Pick what you believe is Damore's weakest evidence, just one point, and sho…

> Are you suggesting these gender topics have a comparable consensus ratio? Uh, yeah. A comparable ratio of social scholars are convinced that sexism is a major cause of the power disparity between the sexes. > If so, evidence of this consensus should be trivial for you to produce. It is. Like I said, it's on fucking Wikipedia! > A humiliation and dependence that none of the outraged people actually lived through. Re…

Your claim of rampant sexual harassment causing women to leave the tech industry does not seem to hold merit.

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NSF_Stemming%20the%20Tid...

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#209

Post by rhapsodic »

rhapsodic wrote: post #200
tptacek wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth sciences. Chemistry. Biochemistry. Math (for Christ's sake). Astronomy. Statistics. Evolutionary biology. Neuroscience. Molecular biology. All double-digits better (some have actual parity) in female representation than computer science, which shares its gender disparity distinction with only two other (generally defined) STEM fields: ee/mech engineering and physics. Nobody is disputing that women are less inte…

> They clearly are. What is obvious to some of us is that the reason for that disinterest is that the field is hostile to them. Oh yes, hostility manifested by half-century old magazine ads or phrases like "cowboy coder." If they're allowing their career paths to be altered by innocuous stuff like that, or what a teacher might have told them, I don't think they want it that badly. There are no qualified women banging…

Here again, lots of upvotes for the parent, but the downvotes are currently winning by 2.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#210

Post by rhapsodic »

tptacek wrote: post #207
rhapsodic wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you thought naming a handful of other STEM fields along with a rough participation ratio made your premise any more meaningful. You seem to think that, from the fact that women participate…

I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields".

> I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields".

Even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.

Post reply on HN