Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

thedatingring.tumblr.com

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#101
post #99
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand what to do with the concept. Anyone would be a fool to think that you can group people by some attribute (like ethnicity) and show correlations with other attributes (like income). (Granted, we might want to do a bit of work to see if the correlations are stronger than would be expected in a purely random distribution of attributes, but we can assume this is the case.) And, given those correl…

I have a hard time believing you're genuinely interested in understanding the concept since you're putting up resistance at every step. I'm not here to make you want to learn — I was presuming you already did. If not, my mistake for engaging.

I'm putting up resistance because there is still very little I have heard that makes sense. I do consider myself a skeptic, and I think skepticism is a requirement for critical thinking rather than an obstacle to it.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#102
post #81
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is your proposed solution to this idea of privilege? It seems like you're more disappointed with a lack of awareness of it (although a young child shouldn't be blamed for ignorance of what everyone else's home is like), rather than the existence of it. So if I say "yes, I get it, I'm a white male and therefore life is statistically easier for me," have I sufficiently recognized my "privilege"? Or do I have t…

I'm not sure what you mean by "solution." To abolish privilege? That's neither possible nor desirable, IMO. Privilege exists wherever there's a differential in power for any reason. The problem is being blind to it and not understanding how it operates in your life and the lives of others. The solution to that problem is being committed to developing a deep sense of empathy.

Well, just lost me here. What is the point of recognising privilege if you are not trying to get rid of it?

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#103
post #67
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not blacks? Why not midgets? Yes, those people too. > Women are so entitled nowadays. GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK.

> GODDAMN THOSE LAZY WHORES FOR WANTING EQUAL PAY FOR THE SAME WORK. From personal experience, a little anecdote: When I was first hired as a junior developer, I was offered 40k. Me, along with a few women, and a few junior guys. Now, is it sexism that: a) I demanded hire pay and was in pay negotiation for 2 months before I was bumped to 60 because I made a compelling case, a long with a few of the guys? b) That the…

> Now, is it sexism that:

Yes, yes it is.

It's freaking weird that HN has this blind spot.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#104
post #68
post #29

Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…

> The coin has another side: privilege. Privilege is a simple concept. Privilege is a bogus concept, at least in every manner it has been explained to me. Examine the example you provided. If most elite startup hackers are male, English speaking, 20-40, and white or Asian, then a person giving that characterization would be giving a reasonable one based on observation. What does this have to do with "privilege" or "f…

My impression is that it's an implication of arbitrary social momentum. Where a hacker immediately brings to mind a twenty-something white male, other groups would need to expend more effort to be associated with it. Say a brilliantly clever black woman joined a discussion, she shouldn't stand out, but likely would; that's the social imbalance in play: brilliant and clever may not be the foremost and outstanding characteristics noticed.

The bad part is primarily the "arbitrary" bit, as there seems to be bias for characteristics that have nothing to do with personal traits we have control over, like learned skill. The "privilege" is the label for the background that seems to prime a person for easy access to this social group. Without such privilege, a person won't naturally be able to flow into the social group.

I don't think you're supposed to feel guilty, for the same reason lacking privilege shouldn't imply shame. I think it is by definition out of your control. But it can be mitigated over time. So only feel guilt if you help reinforce the imbalance (like commenting on a girl programming, which carries an implication of noteworthiness (since it was noted) and thus perhaps surprise (which could imply by extension social wrongness)). Such complaints may sound small and petty, but if pervasive can easily stack up and amplify into real pressure.

Perhaps this is one reason anonymity is important. The joke "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" can be interpreted to show that there are ways to balance the effect of privilege by just taking it [0]. But in practice, you still need the basics like a computer, which is still outside the monetary ability or gumption for many (like going to a library and programming in 20 minute spurts). Normal levels of dedication wouldn't be enough for such individuals, though it likely is for the group privileged with a background like a white male (which usually has higher resources and better starting conditions). Notably not all who seem privileged are, but that's a similar problem, but in reverse; large flame wars happen when people attempt to qualify which is of a larger magnitude (I have no opinion other than it seems to exist sometimes).

There also seems to be pressure to not appear to be pushing into a privileged group. The individual may be ridiculed for their interest in hacking and such. But I don't really understand that kind of pettiness, other than it exists and I have no idea how to fix it.

Disclaimer: my opinions aren't likely valid, as I'm not really sure where my privilege starts and ends. I think I have a lot to start with, but I also worked hard to overcome some negative things, too. To me that's just life, but I suspect the ease with which I can say that without bitterness is perhaps a good indicator of what "privilege" is in the meta sense. I also am by no means a qualified feminist, merely someone confused and vaguely concerned that I may be doing wrong by someone else for some thoughtless, inconsiderate reason.

[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#105
post #29

Paul Graham isn't keeping women out of technology. Nor do I believe he wants to. If anything, his interests would be served by there being more women in technology, and thus more candidates for YC. Also, Valleywag is a cesspool. I ponied up for the whole interview at The Information. I'd rather eat a bug than talk about what a Gawker publication has to say. But Paul Graham has said some things on this issue that I th…

The fundamental upstream question here is whether men and women should show the exact same patterns of ability and interest given their measurably different organs, hormones, chromosomes, lifespans, physiology, and so on. Much of the rest of the body differs systematically, visibly, and predictably between genders; it is unlikely a priori that the brain would remain invariant. Here's the late Doreen Kimura of McGill and Simon Fraser on the topic:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/sexdif1.htm

  Men and women display patterns of behavioral and cognitive 
  differences that reflect varying hormonal influences on 
  brain development

  By Doreen Kimura (May 13, 2002)

  Men and women differ not only in their physical attributes 
  and reproductive function but also in many other 
  characteristics, including the way they solve intellectual 
  problems. For the past few decades, it has been 
  ideologically fashionable to insist that these behavioral 
  differences are minimal and are the consequence of 
  variations in experience during development before and 
  after adolescence. Evidence accumulated more recently, 
  however, suggests that the effects of sex hormones on brain 
  organization occur so early in life that from the start the 
  environment is acting on differently wired brains in boys 
  and girls. Such effects make evaluating the role of 
  experience, independent of physiological predisposition, a 
  difficult if not dubious task. The biological bases of sex 
  differences in brain and behavior have become much better 
  known through increasing numbers of behavioral, 
  neurological and endocrinological studies.

  Sex differences in problem solving have been systematically 
  studied in adults in laboratory situations. On average, men 
  perform better than women at certain spatial tasks. In 
  particular, men seem to have an advantage in tests that 
  require the subject to imagine rotating an object or 
  manipulating it in some other way. They also outperform 
  women in mathematical reasoning tests and in navigating 
  their way through a route. Further, men exhibit more 
  accuracy in tests of target-directed motor skills--that is, 
  in guiding or intercepting projectiles.

  Women, on average, excel on tests that measure recall of 
  words and on tests that challenge the person to find words 
  that begin with a specific letter or fulfill some other 
  constraint. They also tend to be better than men at rapidly 
  identifying matching items and performing certain precision 
  manual tasks, such as placing pegs in designated holes on a 
  board.
A graphic accompanies the full article:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/images/00018E9D-879D-1D06-8E49...

Here is Louann Brizendine of UCSF:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Female-Brain-Louann-Brizendine/dp/...

  Review 1: Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist at the 
  University of California, San Francisco, explores 
  groundbreaking issues in brain science...Brizendine 
  graduated from the Yale University School of Medicine and 
  draws on research done at the Women's and Teen Girls' Mood 
  and Hormone Clinic, which she founded at UCSF in 1994.

  Review 2 :This comprehensive new look at the hormonal 
  roller coaster  that rules women's lives down to the 
  cellular level, "a user's guide to new research about the 
  female brain and the neurobehavioral systems that make us 
  women," offers a trove of information, as well as some 
  stunning insights. Though referenced like a work of 
  research, Brizedine's writing style is fully accessible. 
  Brizendine provides a fascinating look at the life cycle of 
  the female brain from birth ("baby girls will connect 
  emotionally in ways that baby boys don't") to birthing 
  ("Motherhood changes you because it literally alters a 
  woman's brain-structurally, functionally, and in many ways, 
  irreversibly") to menopause (when "the female brain is   
  nowhere near ready to retire") and beyond.
There are tens of thousands of papers in this general area on Pubmed.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#106
post #101
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time believing you're genuinely interested in understanding the concept since you're putting up resistance at every step. I'm not here to make you want to learn — I was presuming you already did. If not, my mistake for engaging.

I'm putting up resistance because there is still very little I have heard that makes sense. I do consider myself a skeptic, and I think skepticism is a requirement for critical thinking rather than an obstacle to it.

A person willing to learn says, "That's interesting and it doesn't make sense to me for X, Y, and Z reasons. I'm obviously not getting something and am probably confused about something important." That is not what you're saying.

Being a skeptic is orthogonal to having that attitude.

Anyhow, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ...

I'll just end it here and you can reply however you'd like or not at all. :)

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#107
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The coin has another side: privilege. Privilege is a simple concept. Privilege is a bogus concept, at least in every manner it has been explained to me. Examine the example you provided. If most elite startup hackers are male, English speaking, 20-40, and white or Asian, then a person giving that characterization would be giving a reasonable one based on observation. What does this have to do with "privilege" or "f…

Privilege exists when the outward characteristics you describe are used as heuristics for filtering good coders from bad coders. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of the heuristics they are using when performing such a task. LessWrong explains some of these errors in reasoning quite well [1][2]. When generalized to an entire population, these heuristics construct a "privilege" because anyone with characteristics…

> As a male, I spend less time worrying about my own safety (in general) - that is a privilege.

You're far more likely to be assaulted, although your assault is less likely to be sexual in nature.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#108
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last paragraph took some weight from your post, in my opinion. I agree with you in general, but comparing that description of your student with my own experience, I can't help but think that maybe he really doesn't want it enough. Having a computer at home, he's in a much better position than I was, when I learned programming at 13 by going to a public PC for 3h/week. I also didn't know English, nor did I have an…

It does sound like you wanted it more or at least had a way of approaching the problem that made it possible for you to get what you wanted more easily than my student did. But let's teleport all the people pg or anyone else here would consider "hackers" into your situation at age 13. How many would've kept at it? I'm also wondering why you left out the most important dimension, IMO, which is social support. Did your…

Regarding social support, my friends didn't really know and my parents couldn't really help (they're both actors with no particular affinity for technology). As for the determination, unfortunately not, I was always a pretty lazy kid - I just freaking enjoyed it.

Anyhow, this isn't battle of the anecdotes, as if one has to win.

Sure, and as I said, I agree with your post, it's just that when you're talking about the poor conditions that many kids have, and the you describe one with a home computer and access to programming classes, it takes the strength from your point. I was picturing worse conditions, frankly.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#109
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "solution." To abolish privilege? That's neither possible nor desirable, IMO. Privilege exists wherever there's a differential in power for any reason. The problem is being blind to it and not understanding how it operates in your life and the lives of others. The solution to that problem is being committed to developing a deep sense of empathy.

Well, just lost me here. What is the point of recognising privilege if you are not trying to get rid of it?

I don't want to derail the conversation since the #1 hurdle is the collective blindness people have to the concept on HN and in the tech community at large. It's a complex thing to understand and I don't claim to understand it perfectly or even well.

Everyone is privileged in certain ways that make them blind to other types of privilege. Feminists use the word "intersectionality" to describe this state of affairs.

Anyhow, the point (IMO) is to learn how to navigate in the world without unknowingly exercising your privilege to the detriment of others, like an oafish tourist who walks right through the middle of someone's rock garden because they didn't know any better and when they're informed respond with, "It was just a bunch of stupid rocks! What's the big deal?"

If you grok the concept of privilege, great! My experience is that on HN virtually nobody does. tptacek's comment above is the clearest I've ever seen on the subject here.

Re: Paul Graham Isn't Keeping Women out of Tech

#110
post #59
post #11

We're creating an environment now in which it is practically impossible to discuss this topic in tech. Our general irrationality and desire to completely and utterly jump down the throat of anyone who even remotely touches on this topic means that in the future any gender topics are just going to get "no comment" responses. That's sad and not without a touch of irony precisely because in stifling the discussion we're…

IMO, folks on HN need to do much less discussing on this topic and a lot more listening. For the most part, HN is collectively blind to issues of power and privilege. For those interested in learning more about privilege, read these two essays by John Scalzi, Being Poor ( http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/ ) and Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is ( http://whatever.scalzi.com/20…

On the contrary, I would suggest listening to Ram Z Paul (http://www.ramzpaul.com/)

You claim that people at HN experience privilege, and in some sense I agree most of us do. And yet as proponent of a progressive agenda, you also have a different kind of privilege. Most normal people will automatically identify you with the "right" side. You will never have to fear being labelled a racist, sexist or anti-Semite. For example, why is it that you automatically turn to very patronizing language when addressing people you consider insufficiently educated in their privilege? Could it be that you are used to having your sense of moral superiority go unchallenged?

Post reply on HN