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

Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

themacro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 329 posts

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#281

Post by tptacek »

exstudent2 wrote: post #280
tptacek wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting firewood to stay warm in the winter is practically the definition of pointless unfulfilling labor.

I think we have very different definitions of unfulfilling. Doing something hard to stay alive is the definition of fulfilling in my book. What does fulfillment mean to you? The task in and of itself has to be rewarding? I'm purely judging by the outcome of the task and not how difficult the task itself is.

This is a definition of "fulfilling" that captures "subsistence farming".

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#282

Post by BurningFrog »

michaelt wrote: post #237
BurningFrog wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we presume that observations are not caused by biological differences without concrete evidence of those differences. The corollary to that is that disparities in outcome are prima facie evidence of disparities in opportunity. This is a textbook circular argument.

Is it? I think it just means you need evidence of biological differences (or lack thereof) from things other than disparities in outcome - from outside the circle. If I say "Women aren't as fast at sprinting as men, and it's biological, as evidenced by the fact women aren't as fast as sprinting as men" I agree that's a circular argument. But if I say "Women aren't as fast at sprinting as men, and it's biological, as…

I agree with the last part. But here OP said "we presume X is not a factor", and then goes on to conclude X is not a factor.

OP requires evidence for biological differences, but requires no such thing for the discrimination theory.

Throwing around "epistomological presumption", "corollary"' and "prima facie" does not make this a scientific argument.

In reality there is plenty of evidence for biological gender differences (and for discrimination). Pinker's "Blank Slate" is a good start if you have time to read 600 pages.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#283

Post by exstudent2 »

tptacek wrote: post #281
exstudent2 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have very different definitions of unfulfilling. Doing something hard to stay alive is the definition of fulfilling in my book. What does fulfillment mean to you? The task in and of itself has to be rewarding? I'm purely judging by the outcome of the task and not how difficult the task itself is.

This is a definition of "fulfilling" that captures "subsistence farming".

Which many would consider fulfilling :) c.f. any farming commune.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#284

Post by tptacek »

exstudent2 wrote: post #283
tptacek wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a definition of "fulfilling" that captures "subsistence farming".

Which many would consider fulfilling :) c.f. any farming commune.

c.f. impoverished rural Asia and Africa.

A lot of unfulfilling labor becomes "fulfilling" when you have the luxury of picking it up and putting it down whenever you'd like.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#285

Post by tomp »

alphydan wrote: post #261
tomp wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of pressure was there? You, her family, your family, friends, coworkers, ...? Were they only saying that she should make the sacrifice (easy to ignore), or was she e.g. not promoted because of it (hard to ignore)?

I would argue the exact opposite applies to many people: I couldn't care less about promotions (An additional $40,000? It doesn't affect my happiness in any way). If I want extra responsibilities for the challenge, I can usually engineer my roles and projects to do them without moving up the org-chart. On the other hand, all your family and friends judging you, raising eyebrows, making you feel like a bad mother ...…

Hm... I guess my logic would be, if they don't agree (or at least try to understand) my choices/reasons/morality, then they're not real friends!

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#286

Post by wpietri »

HarshTruth wrote: post #202
wpietri wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason women dominate in certain fields is that those fields were generally seen as less important, so women were pushed into them. E.g., doctors were men, women were nurses, and there was an enormous pay and prestige difference between the two. (Hint: it did not favor the nurses.) If you're interested in learning more, researching "pink ghetto" will get you started.

Its actually the other way around. Men face more pressure to earn a higher income than women, so more men enter higher paying careers. 1. Women prefer to marry a guy who makes more money than her. So there is significant sexual pressure to become a high status ($) man. 2. Men (statistically) can't marry up large income gaps. So they know that what ever lifestyle they want, they have to be solely responsible for it. W…

That sounds good, but, it's mainly retrograde sexist bunk. It also ignores the long history of women fighting for access to those professions and being actively denied.

Which you presumably know as well, which is why you created a new, anonymous account rather than owning your words.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#287

Post by facepalm »

belorn wrote: post #274
facepalm wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation for the "50% of male teachers leave"? I'd be interested in the details. Thanks!

Rapport 2009:7 R, Swedish national agency of higher education. A start would be to read page 18 and down, but the conclusions on page 31 and 56 is what most of my comment is based on. To translate a section with title "why do men drop out": "Our conclusion, somewhat simplified, are three main root causes. First, men who start studying to become a teacher can be less convinced in their decision, because they are walki…

But do give any indications that these are the real causes, or are they also just speculating as so many others do when it comes to explaining those phenomena? Did they study the causes at all? Or did they just note "50% drop out" and then jump to the conclusion that it must be because x?

Thanks for translating.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#288

Post by wpietri »

brighteyes wrote: post #183
wpietri wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason women dominate in certain fields is that those fields were generally seen as less important, so women were pushed into them. E.g., doctors were men, women were nurses, and there was an enormous pay and prestige difference between the two. (Hint: it did not favor the nurses.) If you're interested in learning more, researching "pink ghetto" will get you started.

That is a theory that can explain some fields. However, so many exceptions exist that it can't be the whole story. For example, women dominate * Clinical psychology * Veterinary medicine * Biology All of which are important, fulfilling, well-paying fields. In all of them it's hard to say women were "pushed" there, rather women were very interested in them, and arrived in larger numbers than men.

I don't recall saying it was the whole story. It's a big world. I'm just telling the "OMG discrimination" guy that it's important to understand the history.

But if you'd like to claim those as important exceptions, you'd have to show that those fields are important and well-paying relative to other options available to those women.

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#289

Post by wpietri »

MollyR wrote: post #273
wpietri wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason women dominate in certain fields is that those fields were generally seen as less important, so women were pushed into them. E.g., doctors were men, women were nurses, and there was an enormous pay and prestige difference between the two. (Hint: it did not favor the nurses.) If you're interested in learning more, researching "pink ghetto" will get you started.

This is a little weird comment to me. I have lots of friends who are nurses that make 90k and higher on the east cost, and have way more prestige,class, respect from other people than me a software engineer.

Ok?

I am not denying that, but I'm not seeing how it's connected to me telling the "OMG helping women is sexism" guy that there's a history here that he should pay attention to.

In particular, the historical comparator to nurses isn't software engineers, it's doctors. Take a look at the gender distribution of medical school graduates:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SwyK7qFvLaI/AAAAAAAAL_...

You can see it take off with Title IX, which banned outright institutional discrimination by gender.

A lot of women with interest in and talent for medicine who wanted to become doctors instead became nurses, which fed that historical imbalance. We've fixed the schooling, but we're still working on the outcome; the gender distribution of doctors is still not great: 66% male in the US.

So when this guy whines that there are no organizations helping men become nurses, my reply is that the reason women have historically dominated that field is not anti-male barriers to dudes who really want to be nurses, but previous anti-female barriers in the higher-status profession of doctors (and other things they could have done).

Re: Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers

#290

Post by MollyR »

wpietri wrote: post #289
MollyR wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little weird comment to me. I have lots of friends who are nurses that make 90k and higher on the east cost, and have way more prestige,class, respect from other people than me a software engineer.

Ok? I am not denying that, but I'm not seeing how it's connected to me telling the "OMG helping women is sexism" guy that there's a history here that he should pay attention to. In particular, the historical comparator to nurses isn't software engineers, it's doctors. Take a look at the gender distribution of medical school graduates: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SwyK7qFvLaI/AAAAAAAAL_... You can see it take…

Why do we have to work on the equality of outcome ? Isn't equality of opportunity enough ?

My friends who are nurses wanted to be nurses, they didn't want to go medical school. They didn't want to wait to make money until their 30's, they considered career paths in relation to having a family. As long as they had the option, I don't see why forcing outcome is important here.

As for helping men into nursing, if diversity is good in one field its probably helpful in another. Men might want a male nurse who can emphasize with male concerns. Being a woman, I'm just taking guesses here, like prostate issues, balding, infertility, and whatever else.

Maybe we should help men get into fields like nursing and teaching. So boys and girls both have role models in lots of fields.

I get the historical context, but I don't think forcing an over reaction in the other direction is better. I think we all benefit from choices and freedom.

Post reply on HN