111–120 of 177 posts
[reads all the comments about how no one wants ladies in their field anyway] And people wonder why the ladies don't want to hang out with you kids all day. Could it be that ladies are smart enough to figure out when and where they are unwelcome? UNPOSSIBLE signed, a lady who is interested in programming
I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…
Not only does he make the logical fallacies you suggest, but he also ignores plenty of evidence that there might be natural causes: For instance, there is plenty of evidence women are less likely to be very good (or very bad) at math: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941 There is also evidence women are more risk averse, making them less likely to work in…
Especially the first one: women are better at math in some cultural settings and worse in others, suggesting that the gender gap is culturally determined. In order to prove that these things were biologically determined you would either need to show that they were present at birth, across a large number of different cultural contexts, or had direct, traceable biological causation. In the absences of any of those three, I and most social scientists will assume that gender differences are the product of culture.
I hate to pick apart Fowler -- probably a good way for folks to call me an idiot -- but I have to. here are (roughly) 50% women in the world, so we should expect the ratio for women in computing to be 50% - unless there's real evidence that some other ratio is natural.[2] So far there's no such evidence. But, er, doesn't the observation that the actual ratio is different evidence constitute "evidence"? Aside from dir…
Not only does he make the logical fallacies you suggest, but he also ignores plenty of evidence that there might be natural causes: For instance, there is plenty of evidence women are less likely to be very good (or very bad) at math: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5888/494.summary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941 There is also evidence women are more risk averse, making them less likely to work in…
Especially the first one: women are better at math in some cultural settings and worse in others, suggesting that the gender gap is culturally determined. In order to prove that these things were biologically determined you would either need to show that they were present at birth, across a large number of different cultural contexts, or had direct, traceable biological causation. In the absences of any of those three, I and most social scientists will assume that gender differences are the product of culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was told I'd never be a programmer because I didn't get good marks in math and physics, that was sixteen years ago. Let's kill the myth. I can't see any reason why being genuinely good at math is more important to effective programming than being good at chemistry (layers and sequence), biology (complex systems) or languages (building meaning from abstract or incomplete signals). You do not need to be good at late…
Sorry to be so brutally honest....but personally with women rejecting me everywhere in a downright rude manner as an undesirable nerd it is hard not to have a bias against them! Agreed that perhaps not all women are like that...but for one that is nice there is at least a hundred shallow bitches around!
I either gravitate toward women who tend to respond to my advances negatively or have some behavior that puts women off. Therefore, I'm sexist and consider most if not all women inferior to men in ways including ability in math, engineering. Because I can't get them to sleep with me.
...What??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was told I'd never be a programmer because I didn't get good marks in math and physics, that was sixteen years ago. Let's kill the myth. I can't see any reason why being genuinely good at math is more important to effective programming than being good at chemistry (layers and sequence), biology (complex systems) or languages (building meaning from abstract or incomplete signals). You do not need to be good at late…
I can't see any reason why being genuinely good at math is more importnat to effective programming... I would strongly suspect that just as math and CS ability are correlated, so would math and chemistry. Biology less so, since biology is mostly just memorizing (at least for the first 3-4 years of college). Anyway, I cited math data mainly because it's so widely studied. I get so many downvotes when I discuss this to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have similar thoughts. But also, it bothers me that the imbalances in tech are considered to be somehow more pathological or worse than the imbalances that exist in all kinds of other professions. We seem to be the only profession flogging ourselves over this issue (I'm sure there are some others, but I doubt there are many). Are people in nursing worried about the field underperforming as a whole because it has so…
If we keep going with your excellent point, it's not hard to see a hypothetical argument for aiming to make everyone in the world equally interested in everything. Proponents of this theory in tech jobs don't seem to understand this. They just see that if the numbers don't add up to a perfectly even split, there's something nefarious going on.
For a given value of true, Programming is just normal human language literacy with slightly stricter syntax rules. As such I say there should be as many good women programmers to good male programmers as there are good women writers.
Programming is just writing lines of code with correct syntax?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was told I'd never be a programmer because I didn't get good marks in math and physics, that was sixteen years ago. Let's kill the myth. I can't see any reason why being genuinely good at math is more important to effective programming than being good at chemistry (layers and sequence), biology (complex systems) or languages (building meaning from abstract or incomplete signals). You do not need to be good at late…
Sorry to be so brutally honest....but personally with women rejecting me everywhere in a downright rude manner as an undesirable nerd it is hard not to have a bias against them! Agreed that perhaps not all women are like that...but for one that is nice there is at least a hundred shallow bitches around!
Go talk it out, either with a friend or a therapist. The longer you wait, the harder it will be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been called a bitch to my face during architectural debates. I've had responses to my technical comments come back as "whatever, sudo make me a sandwich". Been asked while doing interviews, "Oh wait you're not HR?" I've gone to many presentations contain sexist images, etc. Throughout my career I've been constantly had to deal with implications that I don't belong - and that my opinions can be dismissed.. Yet, s…
Trust me I try....but being a nerd and a racial minority it is hard to keep a straight mind when nine out of ten women look the other way when you try to approach them to start a conversation. I dont think you have been in a situation where "Can I buy you a drink" is replied with a "you're ugly ...go away".
Everyone wants to be seen as desirable, but it is not an entire gender's fault that the specific women you've approached don't respond to your advances. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the best way I've found to get dates is to treat women like interesting people instead of potential dates, while putting effort into making myself conventionally attractive (working out, getting regular hair cuts, careful grooming, conversational techniques). It's a lot of work, but it's been more effective than deciding the problem is women. Women talk to each other: the friend you make today has a bunch of friends she can set you up with tomorrow. I mean, if the problem is "all women" you might as well give up.
Plus, in the meantime I've met a bunch of interesting people and had interesting conversations I'd otherwise have missed out on because I was only considering women as potential romantic partners. It is possible to have fulfilling intellectual, emotional and social relationships that have nothing to do with sex. If you do care exclusively about sex, I recommend escorts or online hookups.
