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

Women: Learn to Program This Summer

foundersatwork.posthaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 606 posts

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#311

Post by tomp »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #262
tomp wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intuitively, I don't understand why computer science engineering would have a lower ratio than engineering in general If this graph is real, that's not actually true. https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/2875/why-did...

The stack exchange has nothing to do with whay I'm getting at here, and I apologize if I've been unclear. Let me say for example, in a 2004 survey... "Women were also employed in higher rates than men in environmental engineering (9% to 4%) and chemical engineering (7% to 4%). However, they were less likely than men to be employed in mechanical engineering (8% to 17%) and electrical engineering (12% to 18%)". [0] Doe…

> Or that chemical engineering is the engineering field with the most amount of doll-like objects being interacted with?

Another reason might be “contact with people” variable. As a programmer I can work the whole day and not interact with anyone, and I like it. I never worked in chemistry or engineering, but if my high-school lessons are any indication, chemistry involves a lot more interactive lab work than say physics and math.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#312

Post by adamisom »

zzzeek wrote: post #282
DBYCZ wrote: post #246

Anyone who argues that there should be "More women in tech" needs to go visit a medical college. Completely filled with super smart women interested in science. If STEM women found Coding as interesting as they did Medicine (which is arguably more competitive and prestigious), we wouldn't have any shortage of women writing code. There is nothing wrong with either way, just let people do what they like to do.

"Anyone who argues there should be "More women in medical school" needs to go visit a secretarial school. Completely filled with super smart women interested in typing and being secretaries." "If secretarial school women found being doctors as interesting as they did being Secretaries, we wouldn't have any shortage of women being doctors." same comment in 1950 when only 6% of doctors in the US were women (surprisingl…

I think relative status is implicit in your analogy.

But doctors are higher status than software engineers... I think almost everyone would agree with that. Except maybe the HN crowd - but only if that software engineer is also an entrepreneur, because that's the trump card. But most devs aren't.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#313

Post by mpweiher »

ajross wrote: post #251
DBYCZ wrote: post #246

Anyone who argues that there should be "More women in tech" needs to go visit a medical college. Completely filled with super smart women interested in science. If STEM women found Coding as interesting as they did Medicine (which is arguably more competitive and prestigious), we wouldn't have any shortage of women writing code. There is nothing wrong with either way, just let people do what they like to do.

What's the evidence that women aren't coding because they aren't "interested"? If you want to make that argument, don't you need to go and refute all the anecdotal evidence that women aren't entering tech careers because they don't feel welcome? I cite as evidence the fact that women in med schools have not, in fact, always been well represented and that the same kind of rhetoric about their "interests" was used to e…

> "tech is behind medicine's adoption curve with resepect to gender inclusion"

This is a testable hypothesis and wrong. Women's participation in CS is dropping, so it absolutely is not the same curve, just a little behind.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#314

Post by sqrt17 »

zzzeek wrote: post #282
DBYCZ wrote: post #246

Anyone who argues that there should be "More women in tech" needs to go visit a medical college. Completely filled with super smart women interested in science. If STEM women found Coding as interesting as they did Medicine (which is arguably more competitive and prestigious), we wouldn't have any shortage of women writing code. There is nothing wrong with either way, just let people do what they like to do.

"Anyone who argues there should be "More women in medical school" needs to go visit a secretarial school. Completely filled with super smart women interested in typing and being secretaries." "If secretarial school women found being doctors as interesting as they did being Secretaries, we wouldn't have any shortage of women being doctors." same comment in 1950 when only 6% of doctors in the US were women (surprisingl…

The difference being, being a doctor is (in many parts of the world) both more challenging/competitive and better paid than programming.

You explain with discrimination (which was real in the 50s according to most evidence we have) what is in parent's case better explained as a difference in motivation (making a five-figure salary by being responsible for humans is more attractive to the average US woman than being responsible for modules of code is).

Your secretarial school figure is a strawman to make the parent post look like a strawman. There's a legitimate discussion to be had on why women nowadays are found in a higher proportion in medical school and to law school than to CS, and there is a multitude of reasons that are more plausible than purely discrimination. Let's start to tease them apart without merely stopping at the clichés.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#315

Post by dragonwriter »

mpweiher wrote: post #313
ajross wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the evidence that women aren't coding because they aren't "interested"? If you want to make that argument, don't you need to go and refute all the anecdotal evidence that women aren't entering tech careers because they don't feel welcome? I cite as evidence the fact that women in med schools have not, in fact, always been well represented and that the same kind of rhetoric about their "interests" was used to e…

> "tech is behind medicine's adoption curve with resepect to gender inclusion" This is a testable hypothesis and wrong. Women's participation in CS is dropping, so it absolutely is not the same curve, just a little behind.

> > "tech is behind medicine's adoption curve with resepect to gender inclusion"

> This is a testable hypothesis and wrong. Women's participation in CS is dropping, so it absolutely is not the same curve, just a little behind.

Women's inclusion dropped in medicine between the late 19th and mid 20th centuries, and came up after that, IIRC, so it could well be the same curve just 100 years or so behind.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#316

Post by ericd »

seancoleman wrote: post #28

My girlfriend, a nurse of 10+ years, just started learning to code on her own, built her first (basic) website ( https://www.nataliepeterson.dev ) and is applying to Lambda School already. I sent this to her this morning and she was elated. Programs like this really work.

lol I love this, especially the little easter eggs.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#317

Post by manfredo »

ajross wrote: post #308
manfredo wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the core point. It's not that industries are selective of gender. It's that people are selective of the industry they work in, and on average women select things other than tech. The agency is on the part of people. So the less restrictions there are on gender roles, the more agency people have to select fields based on their own preferences.

No no, I get your point. I'm saying there's a much more obvious hypothesis for why "people are selective of the industry they work in", and you need to refute that instead of circularly insisting on its truth as the basis for your argument. Basically, you're saying "chicks don't like tech", and I'm saying "prove it". And you won't. And then you try to tell me that I'm missing the point because I failed to note that c…

> I'm saying there's a much more obvious hypothesis for why "people are selective of the industry they work in", and you need to refute that instead of circularly insisting on its truth as the basis for your argument.

...no? It's your responsibility to provide evidence for your "much more obvious hypothesis". I provided evidence for my claim that women choose not to go into tech on their own volition. I provided global statistics that demonstrate that the more freedom and equality women have, the less they choose to go into tech. I did "prove it" as you insist I need to do, so I'm confused why you continue to say that I have not provided evidence . It's your turn to provide evidence in refutation of this claim.

The way you keep summarizing this as "chicks don't like tech" and insisting that I provide evidence of my claim while simultaneously calling your explanation "much more obvious" without providing evidence to back it up is not indicative of a good faith discussion.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#318

Post by identity-haver »

QualityReboot wrote: post #174
malvosenior wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either accept that people can choose their own gender or you don't. People don't get to police the reason someone may identify as female or male. History on social media should have nothing to do with it. Do you think everyone makes this choice at an early age and broadcasts it publicly?

That's not exactly right. As I understand it, you sort of get to choose your gender, but society has to accept your choice. If I declare myself a woman but make no attempt to "live as a woman" as society sees it, I'll appear to be taking advantage of the system, and my choice will be rejected and there will be social consequences. Conversely, if I do appear to be making an honest attempt to be a woman, and you don't…

What does it mean to "live as a woman" besides being called "she"? Wear lots of makeup and pretty dresses? I guess the XX women who don't dress like a 90s Barbie doll aren't "living as women", then.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#319

Post by root_axis »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #43

There will be benefits to this program for those who participate, and I wholly wish those women who have the opportunity to participate the best of luck. However, I also worry about the motives behind the program. A huge part of feminism is a push towards gender equality[1]. Discriminating against half of the population while aiming for equality is an odd way to behave. I know the blog post did not mention gender equ…

Who cares what the motives are? She's offering to pay for 40 women to code out of her own pocket; it's a nice thing to do but overall not a big deal even if you were against the idea of a more balanced gender composition in the field (I'm not suggesting you are, I am only saying even if someone were, 40 women is a drop in the bucket). The reason why the money is offered exclusively to women is because men typically dominate the roster within programming environments. Maybe you think this is because women aren't interested in coding, but I'd argue that the 40 women who spend their summer working through this program have already demonstrated an interest if not an aptitude. I just don't see what the problem is.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#320

Post by DBYCZ »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #305
DBYCZ wrote: post #246

Anyone who argues that there should be "More women in tech" needs to go visit a medical college. Completely filled with super smart women interested in science. If STEM women found Coding as interesting as they did Medicine (which is arguably more competitive and prestigious), we wouldn't have any shortage of women writing code. There is nothing wrong with either way, just let people do what they like to do.

Jessica Livingston, an investor who happens to be female, isn't saying "There should be more women in tech." She's saying "If women want to found tech companies, they need to learn to code. Not coding is a barrier to successfully founding a tech company that trips up lots of women interested in founding a company of this sort." and putting her money where her mouth is and offering women an opportunity to learn to cod…

A scholarship for a CS program seems a much more worthy cause, as everyone with an internet connection has access to learn everything needed to begin a career in tech.
Post reply on HN