Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#251

Post by orangecat » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 4:15 AM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #79

atomical wrote: post #4

"This is a bit of a delicate topic. Quite often I am the only female person in the team and have to be careful not to take advantage of the perks that come with it. Guys are fascinated and scared by girls who roll up their sleeves and take on a job that society labels as “men’s work”. If you’ve ever drilled a hole, skinned a rabbit, or changed a tyre you know what I mean. As I mentioned earlier, guys will definitely…

Just wanted to echo this. 99% of the hackers/programmers/whatever I've met, whether in industry or at university have been pretty normal. In fact, the cleverest and most productive ones have tended to be more socially successful, not less. Tech people I've met actually tend to have more enlightened views on women/gender than the population at large. Where it does start to get weird, in my experience, is when it start…

In fact, the cleverest and most productive ones have tended to be more socially successful, not less.

Sure. Lacking social skills certainly doesn't help you in tech; it just hurts you less than in most other fields.

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#252

Post by salemh » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 5:34 AM UTC

bobbydavid wrote: post #174

michaelochurch wrote: post #113

I'll make a controversial observation, but it's worthy of discussion. If you're a woman of average or better looks, you have one under-spoken superpower. Namely, how you interact with other men will have a huge effect on their social status. I'm not talking about overt flirtation (don't do it) or office relationships (avoid, avoid, avoid). I'm talking about more subtle stuff, like who a woman smiles at, who she initi…

Yipe! I hope this is hypothetical, and we're not getting a glimpse into how you (would?) act as a manager. But even in my most pragmatic, cynical mindset, remove the gender from this entirely. Beautiful people get ahead, regardless of gender. For instance: Here is another hypothetical anecdote to counter yours: a handsome, sharp 23-yo man walks in to his manager's office asking for more, and the manager sees a potent…

For what its worth, as a former tech recruiter, a female candidate had a 90% chance of hire at 70% or greater hire rate then a male candidate.

What that means is, if the company felt the female candidate was less qualified, but had potential then another male candidate, they would be hired. And, all things being equal (subjectively), had a greater opportunity of hire rate (our fee's, thus tracked). "Get a female in tech, get a placement," theoretically spoken.

I am just agreeing with MChurch mostly. It may however, not be so granular as he cites, rather, the fact that the % of females in the area of tech is so low, that selection bias towards females becomes an "issue" to look for more female candidates.

In other words (because I tend to ramble and befuddle what I am trying to say), little females exist in tech. If you get a qualified candidate in tech that is female, that is a more rare event, and thus worth more attention and notice (subconscious or otherwise).

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#253

Post by wavesounds » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 8:07 AM UTC

Can anyone recommend some of the "tech superstars" to follow on twitter that she mentions?

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#254

Post by rmc » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 9:38 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #249

rmc wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men in that age range have low social status (theirs starts out very low, but increases into the 40s and 50s) while women at that age have high social status (and it declines with age). If I'm parsing this right, you're saying women's social status is mostly based on looks (you say it's better around then) and less so on (cay) career, whereas men's social status is less based on looks, and more on career. You're prob…

If I'm parsing this right, you're saying women's social status is mostly based on looks (you say it's better around then) and less so on (cay) career, whereas men's social status is less based on looks, and more on career. Exactly. I'm just a principled person, and want to fight this! You're fighting against millions of years of evolution. Speeches aren't going to do it, very advanced biotech might.

Millions of years of evolution aren't as strong as you think. We have women out of the home and working, and lower class commoners and black people have near equal rights with the upper class nobility.

Bring it on.

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#255

Post by JonnieCache » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 12:55 PM UTC

illuminate wrote: post #195

Goronmon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of those people are really maladjusted, but I suppose that's to be expected from a subculture based around endlessly celebrating childrens toys. I guess there always has to be a group of people for others to look down upon.

They were not saying that all people who collect figures and display them are manchildren.

No. Just a lot of them.

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#256

Post by jayc » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 1:33 PM UTC

Can we please stop making generalizations about women in tech and go back to discussing and upvoting articles about technology again?

Signed, a female developer

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#257

Post by hilko » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 2:17 PM UTC

snogglethorpe wrote: post #246

therandomguy wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does getting married flip a biological switch that changes the male-female attraction? No. You might choose not to act on it, but body language, signalling etc. still remains.

Yup. Marriage status may tweak the details of things like flirting, but certainly doesn't stop it in many cases. Some people even seem to flirt more after getting married, maybe because it feels safer (there's an obvious boundary).

My experience exactly. Most of the guys at my job that are in a steady, committed relationship talk less about women in a romantic or sexual way, but flirt and interact more with women.

In an odd way, they're actually better at playing single than the actual single guys.

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#258

Post by hilko » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 2:27 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #108

Wintamute wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those situations the assumptions may, or may not, originate from core racist/sexist beliefs. You need to be careful going around labelling people like that just because they made an assumption. For better or worse it's just a fact that at the moment a girl working in a software shop is more likely to be a graphic designer than a coder. If I was in a rush looking for the new freelance designer one morning and walke…

it's just a fact that at the moment a girl working in a software shop is more likely to be a graphic designer than a coder Yes, it is accurate to say that "statistically a new female hire in an IT shop is likely to be a designer, not a coder". It is factually accurate to say that, but is it right and moral and nice to say it? Words can affect people, and set tone and expectations. Is it right for all us men to presum…

I agree with the sentiment, but the the appropriateness of a question that relies on 'statistical' data depends on whether the conclusions drawn are perceived in a negative way.

Asking a new employee from an 'ethnic minority' if he or she is the new cleaner is bad because being a cleaner is not perceived to be a 'good' job.

Asking a new female employee if she's a designer isn't so bad because, as far as I can tell, being a designer is no 'worse' than being a programmer.

Both examples could be considered something-ism, but I'd say the former is worth caring about, and the latter is a case of oversensitivity (potentially from both sides).

I generally try to err on the side of caution to keep from offending people, but I'm quite allergic to people that get offended too quickly.

(A special place in hell is reserved for people who get offended on behalf of other people.)

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#259

Post by hilko » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 2:40 PM UTC

esrauch wrote: post #234

rmc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a negative stereotype to presume that women cannot be a developer, or do a "hard" subject like programming and instead must be doing a "soft" subject like art.

My point is that implicit in your statement is the claim that programmers are superior to designers. I think this belief is both more commonly held and voiced on HN and itself worse than the stereotype that women are more likely to be designers; one is a statement of superiority of a group of people and the other is (without the first assumption) a nonjudgemental statistically reasonable assumption. Is it really a ne…

Interesting how pointing out or getting worked up over 'isms' often betrays and uncovers a whole set of other 'isms'. And in some cases these other isms could be considered worse.

I don't mean criticizing anyone in particular in this thread, I just suddenly realize that this has often been the case in my personal behavior and in that of people around me.

Re: Why it is Awesome to be a Girl in Tech

#260

Post by sejje » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 3:34 PM UTC

jrogers65 wrote: post #111

EliRivers wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That looks like sexism to me." You say that as if letting someone's gender affect your decisions is somehow, magically, inherently always ALWAYS wrong. It isn't. Some situations it is. Some situations it is not.

I'd just like to express my astonishment and disgust at the fact that there are people who defend sexism and prejudice in this day and age. People like you make me ashamed to be human.

Your comment hardly falls under the "civil" guideline this community aspires to.

Sexism as you have attacked it seems to be "making any decision based on gender," since that's how the grandparent defined it. I can think of countless examples where it's certainly okay to make a decision based on gender. Particularly where gender is the only known variable--there's your decision all wrapped up for you.

An example to make my argument more real-world: Joe works a job where he has to move heavy objects with another employee. His partner quits, and boss has two new recruits from HR--one man, one woman. That's all the boss knows.

If you don't think that women and men statistically fit into different stereotypes (physically, particularly), you should maybe redirect your species-damning shame.