When Women Stopped Coding • Hacker News Board

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#121

Post by rmckayfleming » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:15 PM UTC

simplemath wrote: post #77

filereaper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur. I got into programming because I couldn't complete a level in a game, and I resorted to cheat-codes and hacks. First it was the missing-no hack in Pokemon, then getting the console for "sv_cheats 1/god/impulse 101/noclip" for Half-Life and then rules.ini for the Red Alert series. Hand hacking rules.ini for Red-Alert made a massive impression, any of the game's dynamics could be altered, you could spew out u…

Using ResourceFork to give my tiny shuttle Class 6 Plasma Cannons in Escape Velocity...

I spent an inordinate amount of time as a kid using ResEdit to make cheat plugins for EV:Override.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#122

Post by cheez » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:16 PM UTC

cscheid wrote: post #83

cheez wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you're picking these numbers off and from which graph. The graph I linked has the following values(ish): * Men: 27,500 - 17,500 -> 1.57 ~ 36% drop * Women: 15,000 - 7,500 -> 2 ~ 50% drop So yes, you're right that women did seem to drop off more but not as much as you say.

The graph you linked to. I'm comparing the 1984 numbers to latest available, since 1984 is what the linked piece talks about (and which I mentioned in the original comment) > drop off was nearly identical for men > women did seem to drop off more These two statements cannot be both true at the same time.

In this case, a drop off needs to be compared to a peak value which 1984 is not. 1984 is before the 1986 peak. I'm not saying they're exactly identical but it's clear that there are similar patterns. Perhaps not "nearly" identical, but similar enough.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#123

Post by ElComradio » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:16 PM UTC

ritchiea wrote: post #89

ElComradio wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too bad. I wish things were easy for you, like they were for me, when my peers were cheering me on to learn how to program and I was super popular because of it. Everything was a cake walk, and I learned that if society is in the slightest way against what you are doing, it's impossible to accomplish, so I'm really glad I wasn't driven out of the field that interested me.

That's a pretty rude and condescending response. Feeling excluded from a particular culture is very different from expecting a task or learning a skill to be easy. Imagine trying to learn a new skill and finding that your peers & superiors in the field are hostile to you but friendly to each other. This is the experience many women report and I've witnessed it myself.

Yes. There are obstacles, we agree.

If you wanted to learn something, say, plumbing, and found that fellow plumbers viewed you as an effete nerd, would you just lay down your wrench, or would you resolve to be the best plumber possible and soldier on? Which course of action do you think would be the most rewarding?

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#124

Post by thedufer » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:16 PM UTC

jamesaguilar wrote: post #28

zxcv731 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I initially was quite annoyed by the tone of the comment. But purely looking at the facts, is this factually true? I don't have data that supports one way or another way. Looking at the comments, no one was able to dispute the claim and some other people also echoed that data entry was in fact a subfield of computer science.

> No one was able to dispute the claim. There is an invisible soundless fairy unicorn in my room. Please dispute this claim with evidence. Thanks in advance.

That argument makes no sense in this context. The claim put forward is perfectly falsifiable.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#125

Post by rverghes » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:17 PM UTC

Mathematically, isn't this a guaranteed result?

The article said that the share of women in other programs kept rising. So doesn't the share of women in different programs need fall to balance? If more women become lawyers, aren't there fewer women left for other programs?

I really wish these types of articles would show absolute numbers. Percentages can be so misleading.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#126

Post by aragot » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:18 PM UTC

3rd3 wrote: post #67

spion wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take on that missing piece: once computers went personal / homebrew / RadioShack they switched categories. The new category was "tinkering with electronics", which has a long established cultural perception of being a male activity (and those personal computers were therefore marketed to males)

But why is tinkering almost exclusively for men?

I know I'll get banned and cursed for years for that but here you go:

Oh stop it, those are gender differences and girls also enjoy their differences, even if they're unfortunately imprinted by culture. They're untouchable, they are given what they ask (which is: often dolls), they're social. And the few that are in IT, they don't show up at the Java User Group, even if it's their job, even if it's free, even if it's at the same time as for boys.

They do show up more often at higher-class networking parties where they may make connections with product managers and be promoted, rather than stay programmers like us for a bit longer.

Of course there will be counter-examples, but I see girls in IT getting promoted MUCH faster than boys. In my 14-people office? 4 women-project-managers, 1 woman-architect (who doesn't know GIT), 1 female programmer (with 2 years of experience) and 8 male programmers. Yes, I'm making this observation about my team to imply that women have better jobs, sooner than boys, and it does imply that males don't get promoted as easily as women, at least in the world around me, and I'm saying an IT career is an excellent path for a girl.

Before anyone says "Women get promoted quicker because they're just better at their job", I'd note they turn over this exact argument when it's directed to boys, by suggesting they didn't get the education, incentive, support or opportunity. It's not about anyone being better. It's about how we reach fairness.

I do see that some of the world is different for girls, but unfairness is reported more often than advantages.

Edit: "Why are there less girls at the JUG, is it because they're uncomfortable with 95% men?" > Or that they aren't involved much and reserve their evening time for their social life. The only way to be sure would be to ask them, and they'll probably remark they'll be promoted whether or not they attend the JUG, if you've followed the story of my team.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#127

Post by brandonmenc » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:20 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #109

inmygarage wrote: post #21

I am a female born in 1983 and have always been deeply interested in computers, but have nonetheless felt inexplicably out of place for it. I was in advanced math classes my entire life and placed out of calculus in college. I took a summer programming class at a different university in 2000 and fell in love with programming. But when I got back to school, I took another CS class that was exactly as described in this…

>I can't quite articulate the feelings of isolation and frustration I felt in that class Male nerd here. My god, I couldn't get along with 90% of my class. They all seemed to be disagreeable in a "technically correct is the best kind of correct" way, but also with lots of arbitrary fanboyism and a complete lack of basic social skills or outside interests. Not to mention the petty competitiveness and complete lack of…

> Male nerd here. My god, I couldn't get along with 90% of my class. They all seemed to be disagreeable in a "technically correct is the best kind of correct" way

You got off easy.

I went to a top engineering school out of high school, and can't tell you how many times I was berated, called names, and cursed at for being an "idiot" who didn't know things like the resolution of certain VGA modes by heart (except in that particular case, the other guy was wrong.)

I do understand that this would be more intimidating were I a woman, but still.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#128

Post by guard-of-terra » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:21 PM UTC

stdgy wrote: post #64

istorical wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Don't really follow your logic. My hypothesis is that women (specifically teenage girls) just aren't interested in the field / profession so they decide not to study it in school or search for jobs in the field. Perhaps this is because they are discouraged from trying it by their teachers or media, perhaps its because they don't have the confidence to believe they'll succeed, perhaps they think it's not cool, pe…

What does 'not interested' connote? And how do you frame it? Consider these two statements: 1) The female sex is intrinsically(biologically) uninterested in Computer Science. 2) Girl's are raised in an environment that pushes their interest away from Computer Science. In each statement, girls are not interested in Computer Science. But the first statement carries a tremendous amount of baggage with it, and comments o…

How about "Computer Science field has innate properties that discourage the female sex (biologically) from it"?

Why is it fantastic? Because last time I've checked, women were also less interested in recreational fishing than men.

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#129

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:21 PM UTC

rverghes wrote: post #125

Mathematically, isn't this a guaranteed result? The article said that the share of women in other programs kept rising. So doesn't the share of women in different programs need fall to balance? If more women become lawyers, aren't there fewer women left for other programs? I really wish these types of articles would show absolute numbers. Percentages can be so misleading.

[deleted]

Re: When Women Stopped Coding

#130

Post by Dewie » Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 10:23 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #56

"This idea that computers are for boys became a narrative. It became the story we told ourselves about the computing revolution. It helped define who geeks were and it created techie culture." The facts seem to (rather) be that computers were no longer just toys, they were becoming serious tools. As such, "tool geeks" gravitated to computers. This hypothesis would explain the inevitable sexist outcome of the field wi…

> Playing with tools and machines is not so much sexist as it is anti-social more broadly speaking.

Asocial is a better term. Unless you're talking about the "mad scientist" (mad engineer is a better term...) that builds machines in order to take over the world.