Girls and Software • Hacker News Board

Re: Girls and Software

#371

Post by Crito » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

cocoflunchy wrote: post #243

Crito wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd draw the line at where PTSD is actually induced. IE, actual damage. Replace "motorcyclist missing a head" with "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" and I don't think anybody would think it particularly strange that disturbing images are available to view. Yeah, there is historic significance behind those examples, but that doesn't really come into play when considering the effects of disturbing ima…

It's interesting that you would draw the line at "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps" because this is exactly what I was shown in school (at age 13 or 14) in history lessons. I assume the goal was to shock in order to remember that yes, the holocaust really happened, and it is our responsibility to not let something like this happen again (this is in Europe by the way). I know my friends were also into…

To be clear, I don't draw the line at "photos of Hiroshima or liberated nazi death camps", that is an example of something that I believe is very far away from the line (on the side of being acceptable).

Re: Girls and Software

#372

Post by Dewie » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:43 PM UTC

aaronem wrote: post #300

Dewie wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I ever fixed, made or was curious about such things when I was a child. So I guess I'll just have to accept my fate of becoming a corporate programming drone that hackers will secretly or not so snicker at for being so clueless and unproductive, and to become unemployable or change careers at 40 because of my relative lack of passion for the craft. At least I've been warned.

Well, you could take everything incredibly personally for no obvious reason, or you could consider that no one is actually saying you have to be a "hacker" so-called to participate in the industry.

I think you misunderstand me. I said that I would end up as a "corporate programming drone" - clearly a programming drone is part of the industry. What I'm saying is that, while I could probably get into the industry (if I could stay there for my whole professional life I'm a little uncertain about - see my OP), it seems that I would forever be an inferior programmer because I don't have the necessary passion to become a great programmer (or "great hacker" - and I realize that they are not necessarily the exact same thing), as implied by the OP of this post and some/many others. But I want to devote my professional life to something that I'm sufficiently passionate about and where I can make a positive impact, not just be another worker bee that is kind of doing an okay job but is vastly inferior to a lot of the truly passionate programmers, who occasionally look down the nose at me for not being devoted or skilled enough. Is this so ambitious? I don't think so - I think many people deep down want to make an impact. I don't have ambitions of being the best, or require it. I don't even require that I have to be more than average. But I want to make a tangible impact, I want to feel a purpose. I don't want to wake up in 10 years and realize that my passion was simply not sufficient, that most or many of my peers are far surpassing me in my craft, and I simply have to accept a lifetime of inferiority, or to maybe have to change my career entirely.

I'm not out of university yet, and I think that I've found something that I can devote my career to. But then I read about these people that make me question my passion, because really, it can be hard to gauge how passionate you are compared to most other people. And if it turns out that they're insinuations are correct - that I really don't have the sufficient drive and passion to make a satisfying career out of this - maybe I'll need to get out now...

It's a kind of existential question: who am I and where do I belong? But if you want to dismiss this as just being overly sensitive, that's fine.

Re: Girls and Software

#373

Post by DanielStraight » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 7:55 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #368

DanielStraight wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I didn't strictly say it was bad. Sure, I believe it is, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The points I'm trying to make are that the internet isn't just another version of the "bad stuff" that has always been around and that because of how different the internet is, it's unreasonable to suggest it doesn't affect us or our kids. I'd also like to make the point that there is a middle ground between letting a 10-year old have unrestricted internet access and monitoring your child's every action.

A sample of comments from this thread that I'm trying to argue against:

> That stuff was there during the BBS days as well.... You wrap your kids in cotton and stifle them throughout their childhoods with your helicopter parenting...

> Sure the internet is a HUGE medium, and it's a lot easier to get access to that material using the internet, but that content's been around for almost as long as we've had photography.

> When will people understand that people online is no different from people you meet in real life. Some are shady, some will cause trouble if you talk to them, and violence exist everywhere?... 24/7 supervising is not healthy.

> Is it okay for you to force your child to wear a wire to school? Is it healthy to use the tapes to intervene in her conflicts?

Whereas I say that the internet is not just the same old stuff we've always had, it does affect us, and not wanting your 10-year old to watch porn or beheadings is not the same as wanting to watch them 24/7 and force them to wear a wire to school.

Re: Girls and Software

#374

Post by lexcorvus » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:01 PM UTC

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…

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 problem with society as a whole (the dolls-versus-lego thing is a part of that, but not the only one).

What about the possibility that men and women are different, and in particular that men are more naturally inclined to do things like sacrifice time and flexibility in order to make more money? There's no reason to expect a priori that men and women are identical in this regard. Indeed, evaluating Homo sapiens as a sexually dimorphic bipedal ape whose sexes have different reproductive incentives, it would be very surprising to find otherwise.

Re: Girls and Software

#375

Post by devicenull » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:01 PM UTC

king_jester wrote: post #357

facepalm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't agree with your assessment of privileges, let's look at it in another way: should boys be artificially constrained so that they don't outperform girls (and I am not implying boys would outperform girls, just that that is what society seems to think)? If you offer a robotics course only for girls, but not for boys, this is what you are effectively doing. You may end up with a better gender ratio, by prev…

The idea behind gender segregated classes/courses is about performance, but rather about social expectations and provided a space with less bias than a mixed gender setting. Whether or not this works is one thing, but this isn't about hampering performance.

From the article, it doesn't sound like it was segregated courses. It sounds like there was a single "girls only robotics" class, and nothing corresponding for boys.

Re: Girls and Software

#376

Post by facepalm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:24 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #339

facepalm wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"that many take this into consideration" Whenever they do that, the wage gap tends to shrink to a very low number (I think 2 to 4%) - of course most feminist outlets prefer to quote the 23% or other higher numbers instead. I am not convinced that the remainder has to be "discrimination". Perhaps they just haven't thought of every possible factor? Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female progr…

>I never said that no feminists are mothers. Besides I think a lot of feminists don't really understand what they are even fighting for. If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists. And that's exactly the point! You have no idea what you're even fighting against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism >Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies ai…

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism"

Well look at how feminists act and what their claims and complains are, not what the definition of the word is on wikipedia.

"Of course feminists think staying at home with children is a horrible ordeal

No they do not."

The complaints don't make sense without the assumption that staying home with children is horrible. It is implied.

"There are other family arrangements besides father and mother."

Whatever do you mean?

"http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gend...

From that article:

"In 2012, as in 2002, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 77 percent of what men were paid."

So they, too don't cite the honest number of 4% that you get if you take into account things like hours worked, areas of work, part time, and so on. How reliable is that? And why do you even link to that, if it doesn't address the question of how many women in IT they found for their comparison?

"http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-12/mapping-the-...

From that article:

"The analysis doesn’t control for different levels of education, work experience, or other factors that affect compensation"

Just what I said about those studies...

"Nobody wants to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do."

If you stay home and don't make a career, you are a thorn in the side of feminism. Try it and see how much respect you'll earn from feminists.

In any case I have the impression that the differences in careers between men and women are seen as a problem by feminists.

"We are talking about equal pay for equal work. Stop attacking a stawman."

I question the validity of these studies, that is I question that they really compare equal work.

"Of course your mind is made up and no amount of facts and reason can change it."

So is yours. Well this is just a discussion forum and I can only say it the way I see it. Maybe if you pay attention, over time you'll come to see it too. You can see it in every feminist article.

Re: Girls and Software

#377

Post by facepalm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #337

facepalm wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"that many take this into consideration" Whenever they do that, the wage gap tends to shrink to a very low number (I think 2 to 4%) - of course most feminist outlets prefer to quote the 23% or other higher numbers instead. I am not convinced that the remainder has to be "discrimination". Perhaps they just haven't thought of every possible factor? Take women in IT - how many samples did they even find for female progr…

> If you define feminism as "equality for men and women", most people would probably say they are feminists. dict feminism 1 definition found From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]: feminism n 1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women [syn:{feminist movement}, {feminism}, {women's liberation movement}, {women's lib}] Is there some other definition of which I'm not a…

Look at how feminists act, not at the definition in a random dictionary. That's in general good advice. For example, if somebody says they are your friend, look at how they act, not at what they say.

"An alternative is paid leave for either partner (or the single parent) for example for a year -- with freedom to choose who stays home."

This is already case in many countries (for example Germany), but women still stay home most of the time.

I am actually all for it. All I am saying is that there are more forces at work than people are aware of. Women are not forced to stay home, many mothers like to stay home with their kids.

It's actually more of a men's right thing to say men should also be allowed to stay home more often. In general men staying home will mean women going to work instead. Feminists believe that this is better for the women. A corollary is that feminists think it's awful to stay at home with kids, or at least worse than going to work.

Re: Girls and Software

#378

Post by facepalm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:32 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #370

facepalm wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resear…

I looked at the first two. The first was just a small article about employers trying to discern if a woman wants to have children or not. Why did you even link to that?

I commented on the second one - it certainly seems interesting, but there was bias apparent already in the second paragraph.

How can you expect me to read 15 articles you dump on me? At least give me a reason why they are relevant, or pick two or three?

Unfortunately number of quotes doesn't make them more true. I would be interested in articles that show the meat. For example with the classrooms, show me the article that says how the study was conducted. How many classrooms did they watch? Did they try different schools? Different countries? Different cultures?

Re: Girls and Software

#379

Post by facepalm » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

aestra wrote: post #343

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…

>But when you find such a thing, like women asking for promotions less, why not learn from it and ask for a promotion? Women are socialized to not ask for what they want from a young age. Many do not realize they can even ask for the things they want. Society tends to view women and men differently when they ask. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/jobs/06pre.html > The messages girls receive — from parents and teacher…

I tried to read more of your links, but I didn't get all of them.

"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/jobs/06pre.html"

This unfortunately doesn't give any details, it's basically just "my research has shown that xyz is true" - an appeal to authority.

Maybe there is something to it. But the author has a girl as a kid. I'm a man. You may be surprised to hear that the same things she claims are socialization for girls have also been taught to me. Namely that I should be humble and recognition will come to me and all those things. Those are actually just basic "good behavior" for everyone. Therefore I am sorry, but I remain skeptic.

"http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2012/07/02/nice-girl...

This link is of horribly low quality.

"Studies show that women are less likely to negotiate deals than men for 2 reasons:

    Women are socialized to place the needs of others first and their own second
    Women believe that they will be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and dedication

"

Uh yeah as I said - that is basically what everybody is being taught, not just women. Likewise the advice they give is good for everybody.

There are scores of books full of career advice, for men and women. It's not as if men don't need it because they are naturals at it.

"http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201...

I knew that one before and it is actually to date one of the few "feminist" papers that I accept as valid. However, I don't think the conclusion of sexism is necessarily correct. It seems clear from that research that men and women alike consider a female applicant less valuable. But what if the concern about the applicant dropping out to become a mother is a major factor of that. Would that really be sexism? To me it seems like a rational and valid reason. It is of course unfortunate for women, but what would be a good solution to counteract it?

"We can't know that because society treats baby girls different from baby boys at birth."

From that alone it doesn't follow that boys and girls could be raised with arbitrary socialization rules. Those rules probably evolved.

Some differences in preferences, or in incentives, are obviously dictated by biology. You've probably heard it before: women need to invest 9 months and the risk of death into a pregnancy. Men just need to invest 10 seconds.

I'll try to read more of the papers then I might write more - if HN lets me. Usually they kill my account around the 30 karma points region. So if I don't reply any further, it's because HN killed my account. In that case: it was nice talking to you!

Re: Girls and Software

#380

Post by arrrg » Mon, Feb 10, 2014, 8:57 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #314

arrrg wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminist thought is diverse, sure, but there are certain schools of thought that are by far more widespread. This article misrepresents those. I do not know any feminist, for example, who would ever think of telling a woman to dress more gender-appropriate. Such gender policing is abhorred and practically unheard of. It’s just so weird to read about that as some sort of feminist idea. Also, feminism is super-rad. Pro…

The most widespread one at the moment is postmodern feminism, which is a complete joke. I don't know what exactly do you mean by "gender-appropriate", but there are feminist movements which embrace traditional ideas of femininity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_feminism I'm assuming by "super-rad" you're trying to say you're a super radical feminist. Good to see you're proud of your little ideology.

Holy shit. Please stop seeing demons everywhere. And work on improving your view of reality. It’s severely distorted and makes little sense.

Also, deliberate obtuseness is not very cool.