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

Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

jolieodell.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#21

Post by jerf »

blahedo wrote: post #20
jerf wrote: post #12

I'm not sure this argument stands up to the facts. Women have been pouring into every discipline over the past twenty+ years. That's a significant number because we're now talking people born in the 1990s, which can not be said to be a decade untouched by feminism. Women are graduating with more degrees then men now, women are the majority on campus, and the proportions are rising. Every discipline, engineering and c…

Well, it's hard to argue with her basic claim, which is that it's not at the college or at the job-recruiting level that we need to focus our attention if we want to be more gender-balanced; it's on the little kids. Speaking as a college educator, I can confirm that the social biases are already set, if perhaps not in stone. I guess you could claim that gender-balancing the field is undesirable, which is strange, or…

But that's exactly my point; we've already done a lot of work on that front. You can see the results everywhere else. Are we really sure that after decades of work on this matter, work that has obviously come to fruition in field after field after field, that there isn't something other than "social bias" at play? At what point does the field get to stop self-flagellating?

I guess part of what I'm saying is that at this point I reject the idea that the burden of proof is somehow on the field to prove that it is open to women or that girls are somehow being excluded in a special way, after these decades of work. I'd say the burden of proof at this point is on those to demonstrate that somehow computer science has specially somehow failed to solicit woman in a way that the other fields didn't, in an environment in which this stuff was becoming cliche even by the time the women entering college today were being born.

Twenty years from now, are we still going to be having this exact same conversation and making the exact same accusations of entire fields, if it does indeed turn out that women of their own free will don't want to go into computers on average as a career?

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#22

Post by jerf »

alsomike wrote: post #19
jerf wrote: post #12

I'm not sure this argument stands up to the facts. Women have been pouring into every discipline over the past twenty+ years. That's a significant number because we're now talking people born in the 1990s, which can not be said to be a decade untouched by feminism. Women are graduating with more degrees then men now, women are the majority on campus, and the proportions are rising. Every discipline, engineering and c…

Here's actual data: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_049131 What "natural disinclination" do you think women have, exactly? They don't like math? Women received 47% of math undergrad degrees in 2002 and that number has been stable for 20 years. They don't like computers? The physical sciences use computers pretty heavily, and women received 42% of undergraduates degrees in those fields in 2002, compar…

I think you think you are disproving my point with those numbers, but I think it reinforces it. In what exact manner has the computer field failed to be accepting of women in the way that somehow math and the other physical sciences haven't? In the strongly-politically-correct environment that all women entering college have grown up in (and I reiterate my parenthetical in my first posting for those who may have forgotten), can someone show me exactly what it is that computer science and engineering have somehow failed when the evidence clearly shows that efforts to reach out to women have been very successful on the whole?

Is tarring thousands of people with the charge of rampant sexism really the only hypothesis we can discuss every time this issue comes up?

You ask me what "natural disinclination" I think women have, but you're getting the logic backwards. I'm suggesting that if you look at the data that it may suggest the idea that maybe there is a natural disinclination, not that I axiomatically assert that there is one and therefore it is the explanation. Can we at least consider that hypothesis, rather than implicitly and rather frequently accusing engineering of being somehow the sole holdout of troglodytes and evilly conspiring to hold down the little girls, who have somehow managed to transcend all the other evil conspiracies in all the other fields but just can't seem to shake this one?

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#23

Post by kellishaver »

As one of those elusive women in tech... I don't know. I have mixed feelings on the whole issue and usually try to avoid it, mostly because I just don't see it as a big deal. I've never felt like an outcast or that I didn't belong in this field because of my gender, nor have I ever been made to feel like the center of attention because of it (thank goodness). It just is.

Of all the women I know personally, only one other works as a programmer. The others seem to have no interest, and not because of some social pressure or stereotype, or the long hours, or some perceived gender bias, but because the work itself just doesn't interest to them. So I don't see why it should be a big deal that they're not doing something they don't want to do.

I guess the question then becomes could/should the industry be made more appealing to women? Maybe. I have no idea how that could be accomplished, though.

Maybe it's not the industry that's the problem, but the lack of exposure to it. Mothers are big role models for little girls, and with less women in tech to begin with, there aren't as many of them to spark that interest in their daughters. Maybe more encouragement from female teachers and geek dads would do the trick.

I was a perpetual tinkerer as a kid, always building, creating, experimenting, and what have you. My father encouraged it. He kept me in a steady supply of lumber and nails, bought me chemistry sets, erector sets, a telescope, radio kits, helped me build my first computer and bought me programming books. By high school, I was a licensed HAM radio operator who was writing programs, designing circuits, wiring houses, and training search dogs.

I guess I never did fall into the stereotypical gender role I was supposed to, but it was never pushed upon me, either, nor was it discouraged. I simply followed my interests and was encouraged and allowed to do so. I try to do the same with my own daughter and, yeah, she's a bit of a geek in the making.

Anyway, this is getting kind of long and rambling. I'm not sure where the problem lies, but I'm still not convinced it's as big a problem as it's made out to be. It's kind of like asking why there aren't more 20yr olds in the folk music industry. Answer: because they don't want to.

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#24

Post by nocipher »

jerf wrote: post #22
alsomike wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's actual data: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/cwsem/PGA_049131 What "natural disinclination" do you think women have, exactly? They don't like math? Women received 47% of math undergrad degrees in 2002 and that number has been stable for 20 years. They don't like computers? The physical sciences use computers pretty heavily, and women received 42% of undergraduates degrees in those fields in 2002, compar…

I think you think you are disproving my point with those numbers, but I think it reinforces it. In what exact manner has the computer field failed to be accepting of women in the way that somehow math and the other physical sciences haven't? In the strongly-politically-correct environment that all women entering college have grown up in (and I reiterate my parenthetical in my first posting for those who may have forg…

I think you misunderstand. Your point is that computer science, as a field, has done many things to attract women and that it has still been unsuccessful. Furthermore, since so much effort has been put forth in this pursuit, the computer science community cannot be held responsible for the gender inequality.

I'm not sure that that is what you are trying to convey, but that is about the clearest argument I can read from what you wrote. If this is indeed your argument, then it sounds like you are in violent agreement with the author of the article. The major difference appears to be that you argue the gender discrepancy is just women's preference whereas the article posits it to be a consequence of gender mores (an admittedly subtle distinction).

If I have misunderstood, I'd be interested in clarification.

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#25

Post by yread »

jerf wrote: post #12

I'm not sure this argument stands up to the facts. Women have been pouring into every discipline over the past twenty+ years. That's a significant number because we're now talking people born in the 1990s, which can not be said to be a decade untouched by feminism. Women are graduating with more degrees then men now, women are the majority on campus, and the proportions are rising. Every discipline, engineering and c…

perhaps it's because of this?

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1989

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#26

Post by seanmcq »

jpark wrote: post #14
joshzayin wrote: post #11

I think that, apart from a slightly misleading title, this article is really well done, and gets to the core of the matter. By and large, I think, society starts conditioning for gender roles very early-girls get dolls, guys get erector sets. (in general) But it certainly doesn't have to be that way--there's no reason why people can't get more engineering-oriented toys for female children as well, and I'm sure most p…

I'm not entirely convinced that "society starts conditioning for gender roles very early". You'd have to show me hard data. On the other hand, there is fascinating evidence to prove the reverse: Case in point is David Reimer, who received the first ever sex re-assignment surgery conducted on a developmentally normal child at age 22 months. David became Brenda. "At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refus…

Man, go try to buy a non-sexist "Congratulations" card for a new-baby. It took me three stores to find a green card without any gender-typed activities on it.

The constant sexism starts at day one.

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#27

Post by nhashem »

I blame John Romero.

John Romero, for those who don't know (or used to know, before his name faded into obscurity over a decade ago), was at one point best known for his work on idSoftware and his creation of several milestone games such as Doom. He then split off to release his own game, Daikatana, a move that garnered a particular amount of hype. The message at the time in 1997 seemed to be, "Video games are cool. So maybe making video games is cool?"

As a young high schooler in 1997, reading about John Romero in the late 1990s basically made me want to be a programmer. He was the proverbial "rock star," right down to the ridiculous hair and outfits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romero_3designers.jpg).

By now I've probably jogged your memory and you know the end. Daikatana flopped and Romero ended up with so much egg on his face he pretty much faded into obscurity. The rock star programmer died as a concept (only to be resurrected 8-10 years later in job descriptions for companies wanting brilliant 25 year olds willing to solve all their problems and work for peanuts).

I believe an alternate reality exists, where John Romero succeeded, Daikatana was a smash hit, and the art of programming truly entered pop culture celebrity. Romero's dizzying fame and fortune soon found him in dizzying benders in Vegas. His successors continue on the trail he's blazed, bedding supermodels and entering rehab in six month intervals. Smash hit video game after smash hit video game is released, their programming teams rising in notoriety, and a Hollywood exec glances over a spec script and thinks, "hmm, maybe we should make that show about programmers." The working title is changed to "Turing's Anatomy" and then it's released, featuring Dr. Meredith Turing, who works as the principal engineer for the Seattle Grace Gaming Company, where she heads a team of programmers in solving software problems with unorthodox diagnostic approaches, while struggling to prevent the expectations of her genius grandfather from overwhelming her.

Is that reality better than what we're dealing with now? I have no idea. I do know though, that in that reality, women make up 50% of computer science students.

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#28

Post by demallien »

nocipher wrote: post #24
jerf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you think you are disproving my point with those numbers, but I think it reinforces it. In what exact manner has the computer field failed to be accepting of women in the way that somehow math and the other physical sciences haven't? In the strongly-politically-correct environment that all women entering college have grown up in (and I reiterate my parenthetical in my first posting for those who may have forg…

I think you misunderstand. Your point is that computer science, as a field, has done many things to attract women and that it has still been unsuccessful. Furthermore, since so much effort has been put forth in this pursuit, the computer science community cannot be held responsible for the gender inequality. I'm not sure that that is what you are trying to convey, but that is about the clearest argument I can read fr…

Um, I think that jerf is trying to say that your figures can be interpreted another way. For example, maybe back in '83, computer science was comparatively friendlier towards women than other maths-oriented degrees, such as engineering, medecine, and astronomy. But as these other degrees have become less mysogynistic, they have successfully taken women away from maths disciplines that had previously been comparatively friendlier to women. It would be interesting to know how the percentage of women choosing maths-heavy degrees has evolved over the same period.

Re: Why we don't need more women in tech... yet

#30

Post by henrikschroder »

jpark wrote: post #14
joshzayin wrote: post #11

I think that, apart from a slightly misleading title, this article is really well done, and gets to the core of the matter. By and large, I think, society starts conditioning for gender roles very early-girls get dolls, guys get erector sets. (in general) But it certainly doesn't have to be that way--there's no reason why people can't get more engineering-oriented toys for female children as well, and I'm sure most p…

I'm not entirely convinced that "society starts conditioning for gender roles very early". You'd have to show me hard data. On the other hand, there is fascinating evidence to prove the reverse: Case in point is David Reimer, who received the first ever sex re-assignment surgery conducted on a developmentally normal child at age 22 months. David became Brenda. "At age 2, Brenda angrily tore off her dresses. She refus…

As usual, the truth is somewhere inbetween. Society does start conditioning gender roles early, and there is a difference in inclinations and temperament between the genders, and both of these strengthen and reinforce each other.

With effort you can smoothen the edges, you can encourage communication skills and caring among small boys, and you can encourage risk-taking and outgoing behaviour among small girls, but gender neutrality is an illusion, there will be differences.

Post reply on HN