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

On being a girl in computer science - a confession

zanytomato.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 305 posts

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#231

Post by klibertp »

LockeWatts wrote: post #222
klibertp wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Creating a bias [...] results in an overall lower skill level" Yes, but again, that is meant a only a temporary solution; as something that will correct the abnormal situation we have now and then will go away. "You're basically telling multiple generations of men that it's okay for them to be discriminated against for their entire life due to something that their fathers or grandfathers did" Isn't that ok? Every si…

>Isn't that ok? No, why in the hell would that be okay? What makes one act of discrimination better than the other? >Every single time I think about this issue I feel guilty as hell just for being male. Every time I see a cultural norm that discriminates women I feel a bit responsible for it - and these bits accumulate quickly. I'm ready to be discriminated against to some extent if it's going to help; it's not becau…

> What makes one act of discrimination better than the other?

Discrimination is bad for some and good for others, always. It's better if it's good for those oppressed and worse if it's making that oppression grow. It's still bad, though, and so it should be only temporary.

> Congratulations, your internalization of guilt and willingness to be discriminated against does not extend to me, and you have no right to tell me that it should.

Hey, relax! I'm not telling you that you should feel in any particular way, am I? I was saying how I feel personally, nothing more.

> I'm not responsible for the crap that happened in the past, and I'm not okay with being told that I should bear the consequences of poor decisions made before my time.

Um, the problem here is that - if you are a white male - you are still benefiting from those decisions. You may say that you have never actively did anything against any woman or against an idea of equality - and I believe you - but you still got a job because of inequalities created in the past. I'm not telling you that you're abilities alone weren't sufficient! But they might have been insufficient if you just happened to be a woman...

> Twenty or thirty years is the prime working window of my life. It's difficult enough, thanks.

I understand what you feel and I'm too scared that it will hit me. I'm not happy about it in the least.

But then I think that, hey, there are women out there that are doing really well, despite all the problems they have. I also believe that I'm in every way as capable as these women and so I believe that I would still be alright. I might not, of course, that's a risk, but there are many risky things in life and I think that probability of me or you being personally hit by some pro-equality solutions is much lower than us being hit by global recession... or by a meteorite tomorrow.

And if the risk is higher and you don't like it - we can negotiate. We can think of a way of reducing this risk for you while still doing some good. But the risk will be there, I can't deny this, and I have no other answer for this other that that I believe it needs to be done. Something needs to be done.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#232

Post by arcwhite »

mich41 wrote: post #228
d0mine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring initial conditions. I understand rayiner's comment as: 1. high male/female ratio + blind meritocracy => self-sustaining male culture 2. affirmative action as a temporary kludge to shift male/female ratio 3. lower male/female ratio + blind meritocracy => self-sustaining new equilibrium That is after affirmative action stops; it is not necessary that the system returns to old high male/female state.

So what's meritocratic in abandoning (even temporarily) meritocracy to move from a meritocratic equilibrium to a meritocratic equilibrium?

Young coined that term 'meritocracy' in satire; I feel it remains a ridiculous concept.

Who judges what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? Won't they tend to think along similar lines and discount dissenting opinions as lacking merit?

I suggest that there is no meritocracy in existence to begin with.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#233

Post by arcwhite »

mich41 wrote: post #224
obstacle1 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the male culture is turning away qualified women Is there any evidence that this is happening?

Dunno. But OTOH, I've sure seen unqualified women being hired "to counter gender inequality".

I have never once seen this happen at any place I've worked. I counter your anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence and we all have to go away and get some real data!

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#234

Post by EliRivers »

MrScruff wrote: post #230
d0mine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ignoring initial conditions. I understand rayiner's comment as: 1. high male/female ratio + blind meritocracy => self-sustaining male culture 2. affirmative action as a temporary kludge to shift male/female ratio 3. lower male/female ratio + blind meritocracy => self-sustaining new equilibrium That is after affirmative action stops; it is not necessary that the system returns to old high male/female state.

Axiom 1 is very debatable. Other fields, for example veterinary science, have switched from male dominated to female dominated in a generation with no affirmative action involved. https://hardnewscafe.usu.edu/?p=6581

Whilst I'm no expert in the field, I think the culture of veterinary science is significantly different. So different that it's not a useful analogy. Here are my reasons:

Vets need qualifications; there are very few vets who just kind of taught themselves by cutting up animals and experiementing with giving them different drugs. Whilst experience counts for a lot, I really don't see experienced vets looking at a new vets work and saying "Hur! Fuckin Noob!". Contrast this with the common perception amongst (some, by no means all) programmers that a degree really doesn't mean a lot when it comes to ability to actually solve problems, write good code, work well in a team etc etc.

Vets (often) work in small groups. Small groups foster much less secure mob mentalities and all the other gang characteristics that we see in large groups. In some companies, a programmer pen can hold fifty or more programmers.

(Many) vets work with people. They work ON animals, but the animal has an owner who is worried and needs to be dealt with as well. Vets have people skills and comport themselves as professionals. If my livelihood depended on the vet to properly examine my herd of cows, and the vet carried the attitude I see many programmers carry, I'd fire them on the spot and find someone else. Many programmers rarely have to actually work with customers, and that becomes more and more true the larger the programming team (which is exactly the kind of situation where unfortunate attitudes can take hold and/or immature behaviour run without being confronted).

There are more reasons; essentially, I'm saying that I believe this analogy is flawed and that any other such analogies need to be similarly examined for applicability. Just because one profession got its act together without special measures needing to be taken doesn't mean they all can.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#235

Post by astrobe_ »

laureny wrote: post #205
cletus wrote: post #102

I think these sorts of articles are asking the wrong question when they ask "why aren't there more women in CS?" or "how can we get more women in CS?" Instead the question should be (IMHO) "are there any barriers to entry for women in CS?" I suspect the opinion people have on this issue largely mirrors their view on affirmative action. Some believe in a meritocracy that is blind to race, age and gender. They believe…

> Personally I believe that gender imbalance in this (and other) professions is only indirectly related to gender. At the risk of being downvoted into oblivion, I'll ask the question that nobody seems to want to ask: is it possible that females are genetically programmed to be less interested or less skilled than males for computer science?

It doesn't matter actually. On average men are stronger and taller than women. But I'm pretty sure you met a woman taller than you at least once, and a woman trained in, say, 400 meter run can ridicule you any day on a track. Same for CS, if ever a scientific study shows that women are "genetically" less fitted for CS, it doesn't mean that you can't find a woman that performs better in the field. I think employers are smart enough to get that. More problematic are some disadvantages of hiring a woman like birth vacations. My country made I think a smart legal move by making such a vacations available to men as well, in order to make both genders equal in that respect.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#236

Post by arcwhite »

barry-cotter wrote: post #216
danilocampos wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For me, I'm not sure how productive all this gender hand-wringing really is. Demographic dramatically over-represented in government, corporate boards, startup founders, growth industries, etc unconcerned about status quo. And there's the problem.

die younger, less socially connected, more likely to go bankrupt, more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, more likely to commit suicide, less likely to finish all levels of education, more likely to be incarcerated. And there's the problem.

All the examples you cite are relevant to an individual; they do not stop the gender as a whole exerting their voice in halls of power.

(You also end up mixing a lot of other weird demographic data in there that could be caused by existing entrenched gender roles, e.g. women on the whole tend to live longer because most militaries in the world don't have women soldiers!)

Women, as a gender, don't get as much of a say in how things are run as men. That's something that we all suffer for.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#237

Post by Tichy »

TheZenPsycho wrote: post #227
Tichy wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never heard of the judgmental stereotype. Anyway, I notice that you seem to also tend to believe that CS is somehow hostile to women because the people in it are not social enough or whatever. I just want to put forward another idea: what if CS isn't attractive to women because it is not really an attractive job and women have better options? Think about it, really! Is CS attractive? It is cool to create cool thing…

>Nurses and nannies don't earn as much money as IT specialists, but women don't need so much money. They tend to be the supplemental earners in a family, not the main breadwinners. Simple as that. oof, really? That's what you think about women? wow. Reverse the gendered nouns about that. How would you feel, as a man, if someone said something like that about your entire gender ?

What did I say about women that you disagree with? If I said that men tend to be just the supplemental earners in a family it would be false. At least for the present time. I don't understand what you might find offensive about that - I didn't say that women are incapable of earning a lot of money, just that they often voluntarily choose to not do so.

And I don't think it is going to change, because women get pregnant and breast-feed their children, which impedes their flexibility in making money. Don't blame me (or society) for biology.

Edit: if you are at all interested, I started reading a book yesterday that sounds very promising - "Why Men Earn More" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TE6BDW?ie=UTF8&camp... I only read the free kindle intro so far, but it is supposed to help both men and women to make better choices, and it explains the pay gap. The intro was already a very interesting read - it's short, and it's free, highly recommended.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#238

Post by MrScruff »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #163
LockeWatts wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we argue instead that discriminating is wrong, and we shouldn't actively promote it.

Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".

Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations.

To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#239

Post by edmccard »

eLobato wrote: post #225
edmccard wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It refocuses the issue to gender and suggests you're special in tech... I think one of the purposes of these kinds of separate events is to make it so that women in tech are not "special". >I think this devalues the accomplishments by focusing on an unimportant aspect. Unimportant to you, maybe, but not to the people who face barriers because of their gender. To make an analogy, is the success of some African-Americ…

So the idea is to create special events for women in tech so that they are not special any more? Honestly I see that argument as flawed. Gender issues do come into play when you segregate people like this. Some women like to go to these events, some don't. Have you ever thought about how do men feel? Or just because they are generally in a different position it doesn't matter if they're discriminated against? This th…

>So the idea is to create special events for women in tech so that they are not special any more?

In the sense that once there are more women in tech, being a woman in tech will be normal, instead of noteworthy or "special".

>Gender issues do come into play when you segregate people like this.

Not for the attendees, who don't have to worry about other people at the event treating them differently based on their gender.

>Have you ever thought about how do men feel? Or just because they are generally in a different position it doesn't matter if they're discriminated against?

What discrimination? Are there men whose careers will suffer, or who will be looked down upon, because they weren't able to attend one of these events?

To make an analogy: suppose food banks or soup kitchens only provided help to people below a certain income level. Is that "discrimination" against all the people who want to eat there but can't because they have too much money? Is it unfair that someone who gets food from a food bank is also allowed to shop at regular grocery stores with everyone else?

>This thing sounds to me like trying to justify robbing a thief...

No one is being robbed. This is not about trying to make things worse for men, but about making them better for women.

Re: On being a girl in computer science - a confession

#240

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #221
cletus wrote: post #102

I think these sorts of articles are asking the wrong question when they ask "why aren't there more women in CS?" or "how can we get more women in CS?" Instead the question should be (IMHO) "are there any barriers to entry for women in CS?" I suspect the opinion people have on this issue largely mirrors their view on affirmative action. Some believe in a meritocracy that is blind to race, age and gender. They believe…

Ok, I just want to speak the hell up right now. I have seen misogyny in the workplace. It really does exist, and there really is an Old Boys Club culture in some workplaces. So step one to lowering the barriers of entry to women is to stop speaking of or treating women like negligible trivialities.

> So step one to lowering the barriers of entry to women is to stop speaking of or treating women like negligible trivialities.

The point you're trying to make is lost on me. You come here to "speak the hell up" but you didn't really manage to /say/ anything except to point out that women aren't "negligible trivialities" whatever the heck that even means.

Post reply on HN