The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#601

Post by Cougher » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #590

Cougher wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really that obvious? Given that nursing and nursing assitant jobs are amoung the most dangerous and the fact that the vast majority of those jobs are filled with women, your willingness to erase an important aspect of a headline is a good example of the bias that this entire discussion is centered around.

Yes, it is obvious. I did not try to erase anything, I posted the source without being asked for, and pointed out the discrepancy and my interpretation of it, which was correct, as you can see in this other article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...

I said "erase" meaning "erase from your attention as an important aspect of the headline", but ok, poor word. You still chose to ignore that important point because you've chosen it was unimportant. Why? It helps you reach a conclusion because you want that conclusion. I provided you with two professions that run contrary to your view and you're ignoring that as well.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#602

Post by foldr » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 10:57 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #594

foldr wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there were plenty of rich men who volunteered to join the military. Women couldn't, regardless of whether they wanted to. What you're saying is correct, it's just completely irrelevant.

The usually social ladder puts rich men at top, women in the middle and poor men at the bottom. Sometimes described as a differences in bell curves during gender equality discussions. Poor men, having no influence or power gets conscripted against their will. Women, being in the middle, are exempted from conscription but can't volunteer. Rich men, being at the top of influence and power, was exempted from conscriptio…

>Women, being in the middle [in terms of power and influence], are exempted from conscription

This is just a wrong analysis. Women didn't get our of conscription as a result of their power and influence. They were exempted from military service because almost all men, across all classes, were opposed to women serving in the military.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#603

Post by dahauns » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #413

Thorentis wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubbish "study". Nothing in there is based on reality, but people put in a test environment and asked to try and behave how they would in the real world. Reading written accounts of people asking for a pay rise and deciding what to do? How does that in any way mirror an face to face interaction? All 4 experiments are either on paper, or using video recordings. No statistics, very few people. Just another "gender gap"…

How exactly would you measure social 'punishment' in response to negotiating in the real world? Contact random women's bosses right after they attempt to negotiate and ask them how they felt about it? You could set up interviews with real companies using your own candidates who will negotiate or not negotiate as you direct them, but then how do you gather data on the feelings of the bosses? Some things can only reall…

>Some things can only really be tested in artificial environments.

What exactly do you think will be tested in that artificial environment when the environment itself (with what I'd hazard to guess quite a list of specifics, many of the "subtle and implicit, but influential" kind) is a central variable of the test?

If an observational study of this kind is deemed hard/improbable/impossible to set up - how hard do you think it is to get the artificial setup right? To account for - or even identify - all variables and preconditions? This is so easy to mess up and end up with basically meaningless data. (Yeah, I know - that doesn't mean it won't be published. Everybody raise your hands and shout "Replication Crisis"! :) )

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#604

Post by zarkov99 » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

Cougher wrote: post #601

zarkov99 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is obvious. I did not try to erase anything, I posted the source without being asked for, and pointed out the discrepancy and my interpretation of it, which was correct, as you can see in this other article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...

I said "erase" meaning "erase from your attention as an important aspect of the headline", but ok, poor word. You still chose to ignore that important point because you've chosen it was unimportant. Why? It helps you reach a conclusion because you want that conclusion. I provided you with two professions that run contrary to your view and you're ignoring that as well.

You provided no such thing, the professions you mention are not part of the top 25 let alone 8, so there is nothing to respond to in your comments

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#605

Post by coldtea » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #400

coldtea wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see how it implies this In the sense that if sexism is the major force that prevented women from going into IT, then the much higher sexism of doctors and lawyers in the 60s and 70s would have prevented women from going into those fields too. But women were far more in those fields then, than they are in IT now.

I don't follow this argument. Levels of sexism in the 60s and 70s are irrelevant to decisions that women are making in the present.

>I don't follow this argument. Levels of sexism in the 60s and 70s are irrelevant to decisions that women are making in the present.

The argument is not about that.

It's that "Those very sexist 60s/70s fields still had a lot of women going in, more than women in IT today. If women could go into those very sexist fields then, it's not sexism that keeps them out of IT today".

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#606

Post by hailk » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

_lacroix wrote: post #578

thrower123 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women are unbelievably toxic if they achieve critical mass in a department. I cannot believe the level of petty conflict that my wife endures in her female-dominated PM team; my male-exclusive band of semi-autistic programmers seems like fiddler's green in comparison.

Not totally related but being the one socially adept developer on a team of semi-autistic devs is the absolute worst. I was also the only woman but it wasn't the gender ratio that bothered me as I've been on great all-male teams in the past. But my god is it hard to enjoy your workday when you're the only person on the team with social skills and nobody ever wants to talk to you or go out for lunch occasionally!

Are you sure it's the lack of social skills? Lot of my male colleagues don't socialize with women at work. They are completely normal outside of work. They just don't want to take risks in today's socio-political climate where any interaction is looked through hyper-deconstructed sexism lens.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#607

Post by belorn » Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 11:33 PM UTC

foldr wrote: post #602

belorn wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usually social ladder puts rich men at top, women in the middle and poor men at the bottom. Sometimes described as a differences in bell curves during gender equality discussions. Poor men, having no influence or power gets conscripted against their will. Women, being in the middle, are exempted from conscription but can't volunteer. Rich men, being at the top of influence and power, was exempted from conscriptio…

>Women, being in the middle [in terms of power and influence], are exempted from conscription This is just a wrong analysis. Women didn't get our of conscription as a result of their power and influence. They were exempted from military service because almost all men, across all classes, were opposed to women serving in the military.

And this is the point where we disagree. Women didn't get conscription because they are not seen as expendable by rich men.

And you are wrong that almost all men, across all classes, were opposed to women serving in the military. Armies that are created by rich men at the top looks very different to those created by lower classes, such as resistance movements in Europe during world war 2.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#608

Post by iimblack » Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #587

iimblack wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your hypothesis is that all of this `overhead` (mental space/time) would be removed or at least reduced if men only worked with other men and women only worked with other women? I guess the first thought is that this only considers heterosexuality. Then there's the fact that these are generalizations, and so the premises don't apply to everybody. Do you put more effort into your appearance just because there will…

This is very strange to me. Have you asked the women in the team? I feel like no one would say that they prefer to work in segregated environments. Which is why it easy for me to say it as an outsider without any consequence. I say it because I have heard both genders have reservations about working as a team with the other gendered colleagues and peers. There is no coming back from a politically incorrect comment af…

No, I don’t think I could present that question appropriately. The work part came up because one of your anecdotes in your original comment referred to a work scenario. I guess I assumed that you wanted segregation there, also, because of that.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#609

Post by catalogia » Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 12:49 AM UTC

zarkov99 wrote: post #447

catalogia wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAICT men started to get involved when men started to notice that you could hit the jackpot and become a billionaire, or at least have a decent shot at becoming a millionaire.

What bullshit. Virtually all successful programmers fell in love with the machine when they were young and would program for free. And surely you noticed this.

That's not been my experience at all. That's so far outside of my experience that I sincerely wonder if you're having me on. I assume you're not, but I apologize for the subsequent wall of text if you were just joking.

I won't be so uncivil as to suggest that your perspective is "bullshit". I suppose the 'successful' qualification is sufficiently ill-defined to give a lot of wiggle room, but if I take that to mean financially successful, a minority of the programmers I know would describe themselves as lifelong machine lovers. Certainly some do, but I'd say more are the sort to get cross with you if you try to "talk shop" outside of work; they have interests and hobbies unrelated to computers and use work with computers to fund those interests and hobbies. And those that do have programming as a hobby rarely work on hobby projects that resemble the work they're paid for.

As an aside, if the industry really were filled with technophiles as you suggest, I think I'd enjoy it a lot more. As it stands, relatively few around me seem to share my interests. I've found the best way to find people who share my technophile inclinations is to look for groups and clubs that form around technical hobbies. And what I've found in doing so is that many lifelong technophiles don't work in tech at all, and of those that do work in tech, most don't get paid to work on the sort of tech they're actually passionate about.

Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)

#610

Post by zarkov99 » Sun, Dec 15, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

catalogia wrote: post #609

zarkov99 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bullshit. Virtually all successful programmers fell in love with the machine when they were young and would program for free. And surely you noticed this.

That's not been my experience at all. That's so far outside of my experience that I sincerely wonder if you're having me on. I assume you're not, but I apologize for the subsequent wall of text if you were just joking. I won't be so uncivil as to suggest that your perspective is "bullshit". I suppose the 'successful' qualification is sufficiently ill-defined to give a lot of wiggle room, but if I take that to mean fi…

I apologize for the incivility, it was uncalled for. By successful I mean people who are really good at programming. The overall point I was trying to make was that good programmers are drawn to the machine at young age, out of love not out of the desire to make money. So, no, I do not think men started to be drawn into the field when they " started to notice that you could hit the jackpot and become a billionaire,". There is a certain kind of mind that is drawn to tinkering with computers and typically, but not always, that mind lives in a male body.