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

221–230 of 258 posts

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#221

Post by pron »

mpweiher wrote: post #187
pron wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite the opposite, in fact. And I don't know what you base your opinions on, because clearly, you know so little about the subject, having read no more than a couple of popular, very one-sided books. I find it mind-boggling how someone can read just one side of a debate and believe that they "debunked" the other side. But I'm guessing you probably also read Joy Christian's book and believe that that Bell's theorem h…

It's interesting how much you "know" without, you know, actually knowing anything. Anyway, thanks for writing that up in detail, I will just leave it at that, because you've done a better job at discrediting yourself than anyone else could ever possibly do. This is how free speech works: just let the other side talk.

Now you're just being a dick. I spent a few studying this subject. But you'll go to great lengths to justify to yourself why you shouldn't look at the fossils.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#222

Post by mpweiher »

ubernostrum wrote: post #217
mpweiher wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, dodging and weaving. And not doing what you demand of others. All the old tricks.

Oh, I intend to advance an interpretation based on the actual words that Damore actually wrote and actually published. But since you're going to fight every step of the way to kick and scream and move goalposts and argue that "he didn't actually say that!" in response to basically anything, I have to start from first principles on you. So: would you agree that the memo was intended by Damore to communicate some type…

"Before we proceed, please provide a clear, coherent, short summary of what you personally believe Damore's argument is, and then agree to personally commit to that belief for the duration of debate."

Do that.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#223

Post by naasking »

tptacek wrote: post #189
naasking wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other STEM fields are you referring to? Using CS as a tool to solve other problems is a different proposition than the study of CS itself. I don't see why they'd have to be connected in people's minds in the way you're suggesting. For instance, undergrad math enrollment is almost at gender parity, but postgraduate math study has similar gender ratios to CS. This is because you need an undergraduate degree for te…

Wrong on both counts. Mathematics PhDs are issued at a ~70/30 ratio, substantially higher than that of CS PhDs (and way higher than CS undergrad degrees) --- this despite mathematics being among the small number of heavily gender-segregated STEM fields. Further: almost nobody practicing computer science in the industry has a PhD. There are, believe it or not, places where having a doctorate is frowned on. For the deg…

> Mathematics PhDs are issued at a ~70/30 ratio, substantially higher than that of CS PhDs

It drops from ~50% to just under 30%, where CS degrees hover between 18-22%. Frankly, that's not "substantially higher than CS".

> Tell me again about the innate limitations women have performing in STEM.

No one is making that claim except people like you who love tearing down absurd straw man arguments. Please read more carefully and stop making assumptions.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#224

Post by rhapsodic »

tptacek wrote: post #213
rhapsodic wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you acknowledging that I have effectively provided that accounting? You should, but it's not clear to me that you have. Well, I think its noteworthy that you distinguished statistics from mathematics, but apparently felt automotive engineering (which I specifically asked about) to fall under ME, and you didn't comment on mining engineering, which does not fall under EE/ME. But for some reason, you seem to think…

Thank you. Now, to avoid what would otherwise be a special-pleading argument on behalf of CS, you'd have to explain what innate preference would lead women to avoid CS despite: * The fact that the other STEM fields are usually more intellectually rigorous than CS. * The fact that some of those STEM fields are in fact the intellectual foundation for CS (Daniel Bernstein has an old quote about how mathematics is fundam…

Tptacek, you're the one that seems hung up on the whole STEM aspect. Let's leave aside the fact that STEM is just an arbitrary grouping of fields that happens to include both doing research to find cures for cancers and hooking up database rows to HTML forms.

Your logic seems to be:

1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development.

2. These other fields often involve use of computers and software development.

3. Therefore, it logically follows that they SHOULD also be well-represented in CS and software development.

4. Since they're not, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them."

I think that's ridiculous. Women, as a group, can, and do, pursue just about any career of their choosing in the US. For years, efforts have been made to lure them into STEM fields, including CS/dev, in greater numbers. For all of the pontificating from feminists, I have yet to encounter a single documented example of a qualified woman who is banging on a closed door demanding to be let into the profession, that is being denied entry. That woman, like Santa Clause, is mythical. She doesn't exist. Of course, I can't prove she doesn't exist any more than I can prove that Santa Clause doesn't exit. But neither of them exists.

Her existence can be proven by a single example. But for all of the years of male-blaming in regard to this issue, no one has yet provided such an example.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#225

Post by mpweiher »

pron wrote: post #221
mpweiher wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting how much you "know" without, you know, actually knowing anything. Anyway, thanks for writing that up in detail, I will just leave it at that, because you've done a better job at discrediting yourself than anyone else could ever possibly do. This is how free speech works: just let the other side talk.

Now you're just being a dick. I spent a few studying this subject. But you'll go to great lengths to justify to yourself why you shouldn't look at the fossils.

Keep going...

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#226

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #224
tptacek wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. Now, to avoid what would otherwise be a special-pleading argument on behalf of CS, you'd have to explain what innate preference would lead women to avoid CS despite: * The fact that the other STEM fields are usually more intellectually rigorous than CS. * The fact that some of those STEM fields are in fact the intellectual foundation for CS (Daniel Bernstein has an old quote about how mathematics is fundam…

Tptacek, you're the one that seems hung up on the whole STEM aspect. Let's leave aside the fact that STEM is just an arbitrary grouping of fields that happens to include both doing research to find cures for cancers and hooking up database rows to HTML forms. Your logic seems to be: 1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development. 2. These other fields often involve use of comp…

No, it's not OK for you to collapse 6 (10, if you want to stop "being hung up on STEM") bullets into a single "These other fields often involve use of computers and software development" bullet. That's a bogus argument with another name: the "straw man".

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#227

Post by tptacek »

naasking wrote: post #223
tptacek wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong on both counts. Mathematics PhDs are issued at a ~70/30 ratio, substantially higher than that of CS PhDs (and way higher than CS undergrad degrees) --- this despite mathematics being among the small number of heavily gender-segregated STEM fields. Further: almost nobody practicing computer science in the industry has a PhD. There are, believe it or not, places where having a doctorate is frowned on. For the deg…

> Mathematics PhDs are issued at a ~70/30 ratio, substantially higher than that of CS PhDs It drops from ~50% to just under 30%, where CS degrees hover between 18-22%. Frankly, that's not "substantially higher than CS". > Tell me again about the innate limitations women have performing in STEM. No one is making that claim except people like you who love tearing down absurd straw man arguments. Please read more carefu…

You've ignored one argument in favor of hinging your entire argument on a double-digit improvement in women's participation in mathematics not being "significant"?

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#228

Post by rhapsodic »

tptacek wrote: post #226
rhapsodic wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tptacek, you're the one that seems hung up on the whole STEM aspect. Let's leave aside the fact that STEM is just an arbitrary grouping of fields that happens to include both doing research to find cures for cancers and hooking up database rows to HTML forms. Your logic seems to be: 1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development. 2. These other fields often involve use of comp…

No, it's not OK for you to collapse 6 (10, if you want to stop "being hung up on STEM") bullets into a single "These other fields often involve use of computers and software development" bullet. That's a bogus argument with another name: the "straw man".

Once again:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic seems to be:

1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.)

2. These other fields often involve use of computers and software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.)

3. Therefore, it logically follows that they SHOULD also be well-represented in CS and software development.

4. Since they're not, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them."

I think that's ridiculous, for previously stated reasons.

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#229

Post by deepnotderp »

pron wrote: post #218
deepnotderp wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then in concrete terms, what do you want?

We want the marginalization of women from power, that has been going for centuries, to end. In other words, we want society to lift its hand from the scale against women.

Let me rephrase that.

In non-BS terms, what do you want from the tech industry?

Re: How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

#230

Post by tptacek »

rhapsodic wrote: post #228
tptacek wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not OK for you to collapse 6 (10, if you want to stop "being hung up on STEM") bullets into a single "These other fields often involve use of computers and software development" bullet. That's a bogus argument with another name: the "straw man".

Once again: Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic seems to be: 1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.) 2. These other fields often involve use of computers and software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.) 3. Therefore, it logically follows that t…

You literally just repeated the identical straw-man argument. I'm correcting you: that is not my argument.
Post reply on HN