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

Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

quillette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 536 posts

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#281

Post by edna314 »

biofox wrote: post #161
edna314 wrote: post #95

I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potentially explain the inequality and then conclude that there is no injustice. This is logically flawed in my opinion. In order to justify the inequality they would need to come up with a plausible theory why the inequality is inevitable and then support it with so…

I am completely committed to removing biases and discrimination that stand in the way of competent people, but I find the idea of equality of outcome for its own sake to be deeply troubling. It moves the discussion away from systemic biases, and to an artificial metric that has little relation. A simple example of why equality of outcome might be undesirable is this: people don't like doing jobs they find unfulfillin…

> idea of equality of outcome for its own sake

It's not for its one sake. It's for peace in the society.

> Should nursing training and culture be manipulated to be more appealing to people like me? I would only want that if it were beneficial for the nursing profession itself.

Have you tried it? I think it's not really reasonable to assume that humans are made to do exactly one thing. It's more of a necessary convention to have a functioning society.

> Where there are systemic problems that hinder women / minorities who want to excel in tech, focus on those, instead of an artificial number.

The number is not artificial its reality. One systemic problem is nudging which is tried to be fixed implementing quotas. The quotas are not meant to fix the number but the nudging effect.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#282

Post by meuk »

tptacek wrote: post #152

Once again: compared to other STEM fields, women participate less in CS than any other field except physics. By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation. One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed…

Artificial? I would say cultural. I would surely like there to be more women in CS. There are literally no women at my office, and the only women I met for the last six months are from HR. I am single, and so is about 50% of my coworkers - this is not a particularly good position to be in on the 'relationship market'.

On the other hand, I can't blame women for not wanting my job. IT has a reputation for attracting white, male, introvert nerds - and like many prejudices, there is some truth in this even if this is only because of the self-fulfilling aspect of it (I certainly do conform to this stereotype to some extent). It has been shown that females are generally more attracted to fields evolving around social interaction - and IT has quite a bit of the opposite reputation.

If we compare the situation in CS with the situation in sports the situation does stop appearing to be problematic. We never get worked up about the lack of male cheerleaders, ballerino's (have you even heard that word before?), or that few women play football. I fail to see the point of getting worked up about this specific example of inequality of participation.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#283

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

gambiting wrote: post #255
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toilet paper is often taxed too, but of course it doesn't fit the narrative.

You can use a bidet instead and never buy any toilet paper. If you are a woman you need to buy some sanitary products at least once a month.

Even when you're using a bidet, you still need toilet paper.

Also, if we're talking about less common alternatives, women can use menstrual cups instead of tampons and pads.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#284

Post by edna314 »

mmirate wrote: post #166
edna314 wrote: post #95

I don't get it. Why is equality of outcome not a desirable goal, especially in science and technology? These authors only try to disprove theories which potentially explain the inequality and then conclude that there is no injustice. This is logically flawed in my opinion. In order to justify the inequality they would need to come up with a plausible theory why the inequality is inevitable and then support it with so…

Independently of the arguments of the other person who has graciously responded to you ... please read this story: https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Berge...

Thanks for graciously pasting this link. I might read it.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#285

Post by Caveman_Coder »

meuk wrote: post #282
tptacek wrote: post #152

Once again: compared to other STEM fields, women participate less in CS than any other field except physics. By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation. One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed…

Artificial? I would say cultural. I would surely like there to be more women in CS. There are literally no women at my office, and the only women I met for the last six months are from HR. I am single, and so is about 50% of my coworkers - this is not a particularly good position to be in on the 'relationship market'. On the other hand, I can't blame women for not wanting my job. IT has a reputation for attracting wh…

> "I would surely like there to be more women in CS. There are literally no women at my office, and the only women I met for the last six months are from HR. I am single, and so is about 50% of my coworkers - this is not a particularly good position to be in on the 'relationship market'."

The workplace shouldn't be your dating pool...

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#286

Post by moduspol »

edna314 wrote: post #261
moduspol wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?"

> Would equality of outcome in the NBA be a desirable goal? If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not. > Why do we see so few East Asian, Hispanic, and Jewish NBA players? What policy would you create to correct this "injustice?" Because they don't seem to care. If they would care, it is your decision whether you fight with them…

> If it wouldn't on average it's reasonable to assume that there is a bias of some sort. You can decide if this bias desirable or not.

This doesn't answer my question. Is equality of outcome in the NBA a desirable goal or not?

If not, why is it one in science or tech fields?

> Because they don't seem to care.

I'm sure many do. Many women "don't seem to care" that they took nursing jobs while many men took software engineering jobs.

How many Hispanic men have to feel like they'd rather be famous millionaire basketball players before we get the NBA to start with racial quotas?

I don't mean to be pedantic. It just seems obvious that American black culture puts a heavier emphasis on basketball, and that results in more world-class basketball players. That in no way implies anything is wrong with basketball or the NBA, and therefore taking measures to bring about "equality of outcome" would be unfair and undesirable.

...and that's why policy attempting to create "equality of outcome" is not inherently desirable in science / tech (or anywhere else).

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#287

Post by simonsarris »

tptacek wrote: post #152

Once again: compared to other STEM fields, women participate less in CS than any other field except physics. By double digits percentage more in mathematics PhDs. Statistics is almost 50/50. Several rigorous earth sciences fields --- chem and biochem, for instance --- have 50% or greater female participation. One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed…

> One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed in than the computer software industry.

Can we rank these fields by day to day... sociability? Or how solitary they are?

Say, by the number of coworkers you talk to on a given day for a given number of hours. Or the amount of time you spend not at all speaking, and staring at a screen?

Can we approximate these somehow?

~~~

Can we rank these fields by prestige in the eyes of the median person? E.g. If you are a biologist, does a guy on the street think its more interesting and glamorous than being a programmer? Or less? Why?

From the people I've talked to about why they didn't go into computer science/programming, a lot of them see programmers as essentially overpaid janitors or hi-tech sewer workers. They make Facebook/civilization/the internet run, but just how isn't important, and it probably isn't fun. The people I talked to have no idea what the pay scale is for programmers (actually many programmers I've talked have no idea what the pay scale is for programmers either). So they don't consider a cost-benefit very clearly when rejecting CS/Programming.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#288

Post by kazagistar »

collyw wrote: post #150
traverseda wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most men I know are pretty heavily in favour of equality. That might change if we treat equality as a war against men, instead of something we all work towards. Adapting behavior is reasonable, but there's men also need to be able to have a voice, or you're going to get some major pushback. Hopefully we can keep this kind of war at a low simmer when trump is up for re-election. More specifically, that means making su…

"Equality" is the sticking point. Equality of opportunity (meritocracy) or equality of outcome (sounds like a nasty place where people are selected on things like race, or gender)?

Equality of opportunity a way of saying "fair treatment by some measures, unfair by others". You are picking which traits inequlaity should happen by and, huh, imagine that, they probably happen to be traits that overall benefit you.

"Equality of opportunity" is a phrase I no longer trust, because it obfuscates the true differences in moral ideology. Just be explicit about which factors you think should create unequal outcomes, and which ones shouldnt, and a real conversation can happen from there.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#289

Post by Veelox »

novia wrote: post #192

Hi everyone. I'm a woman with a math degree who just completed a computer programming certificate. I've wanted to study math my whole life, and I wasn't exposed to programming as a field of study until college. I just wanted to state that, for the record, having these sorts of discussions on hacker news is extremely distressing to me. I've worked hard to get the accreditations that I have, and I usually enjoy the thi…

At least at my workplace I tend to assume that the women are on average a little more competent than the men because they have to really want to be here to have stuck around.

Re: Sex and STEM: Stubborn Facts and Stubborn Ideologies

#290

Post by imartin2k »

JorgeGT wrote: post #57
imartin2k wrote: post #17

It’s important to investigate this topic from various perspectives, and the text contains a couple of important points (which of course are not new to anyone who’s been following this debate). However, right at the beginning, this is really a bad argument: “There is particular concern about the lack of women in prestigious STEM fields, such as Ph.D.-level faculty positions, but surprisingly there is no concern about…

> Thus gender imbalances [in lower-level technical jobs] don’t have the same supposed impact and perpetuating effect on structural imbalances as those in high-level fields . Others have commented in this thread how gender-biased attitudes towards engineering fields are present even in young children. There's an obvious connection between this and the fact that when you're a child most of the adults you met in your ev…

"Yes, neither car mechanics nor pre-school teachers have prestigious, 6-figure salary, PhD level positions, and yet they have a big impact in the perception of gender bias in adult labor when children are growing up and unconsciously cementing their views of the world."

Seen from that perspective, I agree. Still, in the eyes of those being referred to in the argument I criticized, fighting over high level positions likely promises higher returns - or at least appears to do that. Whether this then actually turns out to be true is a different story. Right now it doesn't even look like it, as pointed out in the article. Maybe indeed, starting at the bottom, with low level tech jobs, would be a better way to go. However, it would also take much longer. Some are impatient. Considering the accelerating progress in tech, I can understand that impatience.

Post reply on HN