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

Girls and Software

linuxjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 434 posts

Re: Girls and Software

#361

Post by tptacek »

VonGuard wrote: post #359
tptacek wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? My kid went to summer camp for Java graphics/game programming; he had a middle school semester of Python before that and nothing else. He wasn't the youngest in the course, either. Java is not that hard. In fact, because it's so explicit (and wordy and boilerplatey), it might even be easier than some of the alternatives.

You're right, Java is not hard. But I'd wager you paid for that summer camp. We teach a free class to random kids every week. Because it's free, random kids with NO PRIOR COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE show up. This is quite different from a kid who grew up in a house with a computer, an iPad, and a dad who's a programmer. We deal with kids who've never touched a computer before, and only understand phones. When those kinds of k…

I'm sorry if I came off as saying Scratch was a bad idea. My kids got started, when they were much younger, on Scratch.

A good place I think to go here would be a CraftBukkit "framework", something that would make a series of simple plugins easier to write for people with minimal programming ability.

That's how the Java camp was taught: with a game framework that required a few specific pieces of programming to fill in some blanks to make a predetermined game (a brick-breaker, IIRC) work.

Re: Girls and Software

#362

Post by king_jester »

facepalm wrote: post #320
aestra wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's your answers http://academics.hamilton.edu/government/home/government_375... >But "feminist scientists" (deliberate ") WANT to see discrimination. As soon as they see any data that can be interpreted to support the presence of discrimination, the case is closed and no further inquiry is being made. That's stupid. > I have never seen anybody ask an employer why they pay women less. There has actually been resea…

"This is mostly due to subconscious cultural influences and socialization of women rather than outright discrimination." And again your bias shows. What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a…

> What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a higher preference, or rather privilege, to spend time with their children.

We've seen biotruth-y arguments over and over again on this subject, you are going to have to provide something that offers at some least some evidence that such a thing could account for observed socialization patterns with regards to gender.

> I can not read all of the studies you linked to. A lot of them are flawed anyway (I have read many of the like already). But in general I find it interesting. But when you find such a thing, like women asking for promotions less, why not learn from it and ask for a promotion?

You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those items. This isn't how research and argument work.

> This one for example is ridiculous. Can you point to the study that shows that? I can think of many famous women.

There is a plethora of evidence about this in a variety of contexts: media representation, women participation in the work force, rates of violent crime experienced by women, and so on. Simple Google searches will give you the most basic of starting points on all of these contexts.

> There is this meme going around of the female scientists who are supposedly cheated out of their fame ( https://plus.google.com/115858612877723984178/posts/Hphw8ErS.... ). I looked them up on Wikipedia and the feminist story wasn't true at all. One of those women even had a chemical element named after herself (Lise Meitner).

That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace Prize, but did not get awarded at the same time as others), those stories are true.

> The article you link to about boys in the classroom seems to confirm what I guessed, that boys demand more attention. There is not enough information in that article to form a real conclusion, though.

Classroom gender dynamics is well studied, there are many studies to look at and several books published on the subject. Like all research one article is not going to give you conclusive proof of how things are exactly.

Re: Girls and Software

#363

Post by htns »

superuser2 wrote: post #12

>Parents are warned to keep kids off the computer This point cannot be overstated. I'd never have been a hacker without vast quantities of unsupervised, unfiltered internet time around age 9-12. The largest enabling step for me was when I got my own laptop which I was free to break (software-wise) and free to take into my room so I could focus away from the distracting noises of the kitchen/living room. Much of even…

This sounds so sheeple (forgive the expression). What a glorious world when we have hobbies that prepare kids for jobs

Re: Girls and Software

#364

Post by crassus »

philwelch wrote: post #181
jseliger wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I became a teenager, I got wind that it wasn't something "cool" and got spooked. For someone as insecure as I was, having a hobby that I couldn't really "explain" to normal people was embarrassing. When I was a teenager, coding or being technical in general wasn't cool either, and most of the people who were involved were or at least seemed insecure and embarrassed. Perhaps the climate in middle / high schools h…

The predominant gender role seems to be: men and boys are more things-focused and women and girls are more people-focused. So girls aren't willing to sacrifice social capital just to play with computers the way boys are.

It's also the predominant gender role in monkeys, and in human girls that get an usual amount of male hormone in the womb:

http://www.livescience.com/22677-girls-dolls-boys-toy-trucks...

Re: Girls and Software

#365

Post by facepalm »

king_jester wrote: post #362
facepalm wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is mostly due to subconscious cultural influences and socialization of women rather than outright discrimination." And again your bias shows. What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a…

> What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a higher preference, or rather privilege, to spend time with their children. We've seen biotruth-y arguments over and over again on this subject, y…

Discussion is not dumping a list of articles on another person. If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I don't have time to read 20 articles now. I started with some but the quality of the linked articles was not all that great.

"That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace Prize, but did not get awarded at the same time as others), those stories are true."

I ask you to read the Wikipedia articles about all those women. It's not at all true that they were forgotten or cheated out of recognition for their work. Another one of them became the first female professor at Harvard, for example.

"there are many studies to look at and several books published on the subject."

Point me to a good one, then. The one that was linked here was merely a summary. I don't even know how many classrooms were scrutinized.

Re: Girls and Software

#366

Post by nsxwolf »

xerophtye wrote: post #244
simias wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. Having unlimited access to technological resources is great, I don't think anybody is denying that. But with unlimited net access also comes extremely violent videos, social networks with all kinds of shady types hanging around etc... I really don't think it's responsible to let a 9-12 yo alone on the net in their room. Enabling them to access the net easily while still supervising what they do, giving…

I am surprised you only mentioned violent videos and everyone seems to be going on and on about that. Aren't we forgetting porn? I thought parents were much more concerned about THAT rather than violent videos

You're not allowed to have anything but the most positive possible opinion of porn on HN, so that was possibly self-censorship on the OPs part.

Re: Girls and Software

#367

Post by chrishynes »

tragic wrote: post #308

Very interesting article. The problem I have with the particular form the tech-feminist crusades have taken is that it seems to me to be diversionary at a fundamental level. Women are not just under-represented in tech, but in the majority of the most lucrative professions as a whole. So, unless we accept the bogus argument that women are just naturally worse at stuff other than babies, we must assume that this is a…

I don't understand this line of thought. On the one hand, you obviously see women as disadvantaged in the current system. On the other, your ideal world is one in which women basically become men.

Obviously, both men and women should be able to do what they want, whether that be raise a family, provide for that family, some of both, or not have a family at all.

But does is a higher ratio of men to women in a given profession causatively show that women are disadvantaged? Is it only a good ratio when it is exactly 50/50%? You believe so, and don't consider any other alternative.

Or could it be that it is a matter of personal choice based on a biological bias toward certain choices? You don't see the male 99% of garbage collectors as being an issue to be resolved.

Maybe women tend to turn down the high pressure jobs and prefer to spend more time socializing and with family compared to men. Many studies have suggested the same. Could it be an issue of the ratio of testosterone vs. estrogen? Those types of hormonal differences are known to greatly influence the types of choices we're discussing here.

Re: Girls and Software

#368

Post by derefr »

DanielStraight wrote: post #306
krstck wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But with unlimited net access also comes extremely violent videos, social networks with all kinds of shady types hanging around etc... Those are all there in the real world, too. You can't protect kids from anything harmful or scary, nor should you. Stumbling across a porn or horror site is probably more traumatizing for the adult, anyway. It's like people have forgotten what it's like to be a kid! You've been told…

Really? Aside from rather extreme or contrived situations, the average person in the real world simply does not witness multiple graphic deaths or see thousands of women naked. Can we at least consider that there might be a psychological impact of the fact that in one afternoon you can see more horrors and more nudity than 99.999999% of the world would have seen in a lifetime two decades ago? That there is so incredi…

I think you're committing a naturalistic fallacy here. Yes, there might be a psychological impact... but who's to say it's a bad psychological impact? The rise of access to both porn, and violent video-games (for which I'd assume gory imagery/videos would substitute) have been found to have an interesting correlation to a drop in real-world violence.

Re: Girls and Software

#369

Post by Crito »

DanielStraight wrote: post #306
krstck wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But with unlimited net access also comes extremely violent videos, social networks with all kinds of shady types hanging around etc... Those are all there in the real world, too. You can't protect kids from anything harmful or scary, nor should you. Stumbling across a porn or horror site is probably more traumatizing for the adult, anyway. It's like people have forgotten what it's like to be a kid! You've been told…

Really? Aside from rather extreme or contrived situations, the average person in the real world simply does not witness multiple graphic deaths or see thousands of women naked. Can we at least consider that there might be a psychological impact of the fact that in one afternoon you can see more horrors and more nudity than 99.999999% of the world would have seen in a lifetime two decades ago? That there is so incredi…

> Really? Aside from rather extreme or contrived situations, the average person in the real world simply does not witness multiple graphic deaths or see thousands of women naked.

In this decade, in the US? No, you are right. Otherwise? It's easy to find examples.

Re: Girls and Software

#370

Post by aestra »

facepalm wrote: post #365
king_jester wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if there are natural reasons? Your assumption seems to be that women and men should act exactly equal, given "equality". What if that assumption is wrong? I already gave one example - women invest a lot of energy into child birth, so it seems natural that they have a higher preference, or rather privilege, to spend time with their children. We've seen biotruth-y arguments over and over again on this subject, y…

Discussion is not dumping a list of articles on another person. If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them. I don't have time to read 20 articles now. I started with some but the quality of the linked articles was not all that great. "That post is quite accurate. While today some of those things have been corrected after the fact (Lise Meitner is now credited with a Nobel Peace…

>the quality of the linked articles was not all that great

Why?

>You out of hand have dismissed each article posted by the parent and have provided nothing of your own to talk about the flaw you perceive in those item

Exactly.

>If you point out ones that specifically refute my points, I am happy to read them.

I did. That's what I posted. I spent time and effort compiling them. I first gave a summary of all the research and then I posted it.

This is a cyclical argument.

Post reply on HN