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

Girls Who Code

avc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 397 posts

Re: Girls Who Code

#321

Post by lmm »

judk wrote: post #124
revelation wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need to be very clear that the programming jobs of that era are not todays programing jobs. It was 1980, general society wasn't very progressive, why would computer programming be the magic beacon of equality? And, of course, it wasn't, it was considered menial work fit for females.

I have heard that argument for jobs, but what about Bachelors Degree majors? To me, the bigger difference is that there must be 10-100x more CS majors per year now than in 1985. CS was mostly applied math then, and math majors have long been extremely majority male.

Doesn't the same argument apply? Mathematics was not a high-status degree in the '50s, and it was only when it became more respected (and lucrative) that feminists started to have a problem with the gender imbalance.

Re: Girls Who Code

#322

Post by berrypicker »

vacri wrote: post #159
overgard wrote: post #70

When I hear about this being a cultural thing, an important aspect people leave out is that men aren't exactly encouraged to be coders either. Writing code has pretty much no social cred until you're out of school, and pretty much automatically gets you tagged as a nerd. No coder I know started coding because it was cool, they just sort of enjoyed it and accepted the social consequences. I'm just going to throw this…

Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses.... Why is that? Because you're not reading the discussions in the nursing industry. It's a recognised problem there and they do want more men involved. The technical world also has a much larger online presence, unsurprisingly. Same goes for elementary school teachers. Same goes for elementary…

>they do want more men involved.

Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?

Re: Girls Who Code

#323

Post by vacri »

berrypicker wrote: post #322
vacri wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses.... Why is that? Because you're not reading the discussions in the nursing industry. It's a recognised problem there and they do want more men involved. The technical world also has a much larger online presence, unsurprisingly. Same goes for elementary school teachers. Same goes for elementary…

>they do want more men involved. Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?

I personally don't think an even split in every area is the right way to go. But the percentage of men in nursing is in the single digits - far from 'an even split'. There are concrete benefits to having more male nurses - some patients respond better to being handled by a member of a given gender. Same thing with teachers for young children, in that more male teachers means having a broader, better range of role models. 'Matching the demographic proportions' is a stupid goal, but 'well-represented' isn't.

Re: Girls Who Code

#324

Post by theorique »

glesica wrote: post #246
theorique wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure, but largely because the standardized tests are all biased against women and/or minorities. IQ tests - which are pretty well normed across cultures if you use the right ones - tend to turn up the same patterns over and over. IQ tests (or their proxies) are useful ways of testing general cognitive fitness and ability and anticipating on-the-job performance and learning (see, e.g., http://www.udel.edu/educ/go…

So then why don't startups hire based on the results of IQ tests, isn't this a meritocracy? You actually made my overall point stronger, because you demonstrated that this community clearly doesn't define "merit" to be "raw intelligence". It is a much, much more nuanced concept and it includes, I suspect, a large number of characteristics that are heavily influenced by gender, culture, and class. When we say "merit"…

In companies I worked for in the past, I definitely had to do IQ-ish tests such as puzzles and brain teasers. Many people in the tech industry have encountered this.

The cultural mythology of Google (and earlier, Microsoft, when they were the ascendant, 800-lb gorilla) was about their puzzle based interviews, and how they didn't care about your specific skill set but only raw intelligence. (We can debate about whether that was the best way to select and hire people, but I don't think there's much dispute that this was something these companies did.)

It's probably worth noting that the companies that used the brain teasers and IQ-proxy tests also did a "cultural fit interview" - basically, trying to answer honestly the question "would I be cool with spending 8 hours a day working with this person, or would I be seeking ways to kill myself?"

Re: Girls Who Code

#325

Post by mathattack »

crassus wrote: post #42
lkrubner wrote: post #11

One fascinating aspect of this is how bad the post 1990 startup culture has been for women. There was something about those big, boring corporations of the 1970s and 1980s that actually gave female hackers more acceptance than what startups have offered. You can see female interest in programming change in the charts on these pages: http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput... Note that those graph…

FWIW, the startup I was at seemed to have a soft affirmative action for females. They would reject males that didn't do much outside of college work, but would be willing to consider females with the same resume because "it would be nice to have more female coders". Culture fit was about a modicum of friendliness. You could get rejected for culture fit by, say, looking away from your interviewer and mumbling to yours…

IBM may have been, but women of that era made it to CTO and CEO. (IBM has had other issues so I am not defending)

Re: Girls Who Code

#326

Post by theorique »

jfarmer wrote: post #257
theorique wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one says it literally. It's embedded in the implications. The industry is "too white, too male". White men don't understand the implications or the need for diversity. White men are dinosaurs, they need to adapt to the new world. There's a ton of dog-whistle racism and sexism against white men. Unfortunately, that's the 'acceptable' kind of racism and sexism, because many white men are in positions of power and au…

Louis CK has many smart and funny things to say on this topic (race, here, not gender for the most part): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY When the jester mocks the king it's funny. When the king mocks the jester it's just cruel.

Agreed. I think, however, that addressing "white men" as a group misses the specific target of criticism. The 23 year old entry-level "SWE-I" - who happens to be a white male - is not the 'king' and not a threat to anybody. Lumping him in with men of great power, wealth, and influence because of his race / sex / cultural background is problematic. It's more likely to alienate him and lose him as a potential ally, than to get him on board.

On the other hand, informing VCs or other gatekeepers about the desire for diversity in the profession, and holding the thought leaders to a high standard, does make sense.

Re: Girls Who Code

#327

Post by Goladus »

lkrubner wrote: post #131
crassus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Prove that you're not a witch" is a very old tactic - and it's the opposite of the modern standard of guilt.

It is interesting that whenever this subject is brought up, someone will eventually introduce the subject of guilt. Can you articulate why you responded in this way? Do you feel that you have been accused of something? What exactly would the metaphorical equivalent of being a "witch" mean in this context? I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject o…

> I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt.

The concept of blame was implied with the comment (paraphrased) startup culture is bad for women. That is blaming language, even though the victim was general and the guilt lies with a vague notion of 'culture'.

If you want to avoid discussions of blame it helps to avoid judgmental language.

    "$VAGUE_CULTURE is $NEGATIVE_WORD [for $VICTIMS]"
Where $NEGATIVE_WORD is something like 'bad' or 'problematic' and $VAGUE_CULTURE is some poorly specified concept that everyone is just supposed to get.

It's nice when people don't jump to conclusions and talk about guilt and blame when it hasn't been made 100% explicit, on the other hand it's also nice when ideas are followed through to logical conclusions rather than left hanging for others take personally.

Re: Girls Who Code

#328

Post by [deleted] »

berrypicker wrote: post #322
vacri wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses.... Why is that? Because you're not reading the discussions in the nursing industry. It's a recognised problem there and they do want more men involved. The technical world also has a much larger online presence, unsurprisingly. Same goes for elementary school teachers. Same goes for elementary…

>they do want more men involved. Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?

[deleted]

Re: Girls Who Code

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

Goladus wrote: post #327
lkrubner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is interesting that whenever this subject is brought up, someone will eventually introduce the subject of guilt. Can you articulate why you responded in this way? Do you feel that you have been accused of something? What exactly would the metaphorical equivalent of being a "witch" mean in this context? I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject o…

> I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt. The concept of blame was implied with the comment (paraphrased) startup culture is bad for women . That is blaming language, even though the victim was general and the guilt lies with a vague notion of 'culture'. If you want to avoid discussions of blame it helps to avoid judgmental language. "$…

"Startup culture is bad for women" doesn't imply anything about blame, except maybe blame for failure to change now that that harm is observable. The existence of a harm doesn't imply that it was foreseeable in advance such that there is any moral culpability attached to it.

Re: Girls Who Code

#330

Post by theorique »

lkrubner wrote: post #131
crassus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Prove that you're not a witch" is a very old tactic - and it's the opposite of the modern standard of guilt.

It is interesting that whenever this subject is brought up, someone will eventually introduce the subject of guilt. Can you articulate why you responded in this way? Do you feel that you have been accused of something? What exactly would the metaphorical equivalent of being a "witch" mean in this context? I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject o…

Some possibilities:

- The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation.

- Men (white or not) who have worked hard in their education and their profession to be able to work and succeed in tech feel frustrated when their efforts are downplayed or dismissed because they are alleged to be 'playing the game on easy mode'.

- People (male or female, of diverse races and backgrounds) who believe in the value of hard work and have actually seen such work pay off in their profession - i.e. who have experienced meritocracy in action - are frustrated by those who claim that a meritocracy (however imperfect) does not exist and that all tech hiring is biased by some sort of 'old boys network' (which is an insult to women who did well, without whinging, by their own efforts in intellectual labor and networking)

Post reply on HN