What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#371

Post by memu » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:00 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #253

rewqfdsa wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand. I'm not making a statement on the cause of the gender disparity in computer science. I'm making a higher-order argument about why we're so apt to attribute this difference to discrimination. I hope you understand the distinction even if you disagree with my argument. The idea is that if you believe that humans have no innate differences and you observe group differences, then you must attribute the…

Indeed. You can show by simple calculations that slight innate differences giving slightly different preferences lead to significant differences in recruitment if you select entirely fair and purely by merit. In fact, restoring the 50/50 split requires significant amount of discrimination to counter the natural disproportions. We do that in CS because it's a hot sexy field with shittons of money, so everyone wants in…

> Nobody cares that there is serious (intentional) gender imbalance among e.g. shop clerks or bank tellers. Those are not sexy jobs.

On the contrary, most of those who are interested in addressing gender imbalances in fields like computer science are simultaneously interested in addressing the gender imbalances in "unsexy" jobs, since these are just two sides of the same coin. Since higher paying jobs in fields like computer science tend to be had by men, the individuals who tend to hold the "unsexy" low-wage jobs tend to be women. The fact that people don't explicitly name the unsexy occupations does not entail that nobody cares about their gender imbalances.

The reason that high-wage positions are usually the positions of focus may simply be a product of our tendency to be more interested in leveling up rather than down when it comes to addressing distributive injustices.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#372

Post by lagadu » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:06 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #343

davmre wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greedy answer: because systematically discouraging 50% of the brainpower of the human species from entering one of our most productive and simultaneously short-staffed occupations is bad for technological progress and the growth of global wealth. The humanist/utilitarian answer: because computer science is intrinsically awesome and rewarding, so global utility is maximized by ensuring that anyone who might be int…

But why should we force that "interest." If girls don't want to do it, why should we be "encouraging" it. We should encourage everyone to follow their passion and talents regardless of what those might be.

I agree with the original post, however the question here is something to the tune of: "do women not like it or are they being pushed away (passively) by social factors?"

If it's the former, then everything is fine, if it's the latter then there is room for improvement.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#373

Post by briandear » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:09 AM UTC

hugh4 wrote: post #311

rewqfdsa wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's suppose I worked at a desk next to yours, and one day, I brought in an elaborate lego Millennium Falcon to put next to my monitor. Would you support a policy that required me to remove this icon of geekdom in the name of making the workspace more welcoming for women?

In a more traditional workplace, such as a law firm, your boss would tell you to take your Milennium Falcon home because it's unprofessional. Professionalism is a virtue which is deeply underrated by the computational professions. Part of "professionalism" is the recognition that you can be whoever you want to be on your own time, but while you're at work your personal identity is partially subsumed into your identit…

That's implying that law firms are more professional just because of a veneer of 'professionalism' (whatever that means.) Law firms are notorious for sexism and classism. If anything that fake 'professionalism' simply masks the true deviousness of the male-dominated law firm. 'Professionalism' has nothing to do with clothes or Star Wars; it has everything to do with attitude. A graphic design firm has a far different version of professionalism than does a law firm, but that doesn't make design any less professional. Professionalism doesn't mean 'generic.' Also, what's sexist about Star Wars? That implication that girls don't like Star Wars is itself sexist. By removing Star Wars from your desk, you're actually being more sexist by suggesting that girls might find it offensive. A suit and tie have nothing to do with professionalism in general; it's contextual. Software engineers aren't going to the courtroom, just like lawyers aren't playing in the NFL. That doesn't make any of those professionals less professional. The IBM white shirt black tie uniform back in the day didn't encourage more women to enter tech and it could be argued that those guys oozed professionalism. Is Mark Zuckerberg less professional because of his attire? Professionalism is an attitude, not a uniform or style of decoration. Professionalism is about maturity, fair mindedness and respect, not whether or not Chewbacca is in your desk.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#374

Post by pgeorgi » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:10 AM UTC

ElComradio wrote: post #4

I see this as an echo of the makers and takers debate. "Give me a job." "MAKE me feel comfortable." "I am at your mercy." ... This the subtext I read. Other people want to create their own world; when someone tells them no or gets in their way, the attitude is "fuck you" not "change to accommodate me." This reaction may be biologically ingrained as a difference in the sexes; I am not sure- But I rarely, if ever, come…

> But I rarely, if ever, come across articles about women who have been fed up with some job and formed their own companies with other fed up women and strove to put their former coworkers/employers out of business

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-...

It wasn't in IT, but it happened for many of the same reasons as stated here.

The outcome is just one of several possibilities, and the media field may be more prone to have divas (although IT has too many divas of all sexes, IMHO), so I'm curious how the tableflip subculture will fare (hopefully much better).

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#375

Post by aninhumer » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:10 AM UTC

wtbob wrote: post #170

Mz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't hurt my feelings. It does, however, make it harder for most women to participate here. The correct way to handle it is to either find out my gender or speak as if you do not know what it is instead of assuming I am male. If you do not know my gender, it takes very little effort to speak in a way that admits you do not know it: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-fool-be...

> The correct way to handle it is to either find out my gender or speak as if you do not know what it is And the correct way to do the latter, in English, is to use male pronouns. It's different in other languages, no doubt.

Using male pronouns for someone who is actually female is offputting regardless of your opinion of "correct" grammar.

There are plenty of ways to speak in a gender neutral way in English that don't involve trying to rationalise using a gender specific pronoun.

My preference is for singular "they". (It's not as clunky as "he or she", and not as confusing for the unfamiliar as "xe" or similar).

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#376

Post by pgeorgi » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:12 AM UTC

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #201

omonra wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine that to someone of your political persuasion, this is self evident. But humor someone who doesn't share your views and actually demonstrate (empirically for example) that you are right. I personally don't care whether the geeks who work at a given tech firm are of particular gender or race, as long as they produce quality stuff. I would care if someone couldn't get into the industry because they are X - but…

Not sure where my political orientation comes into it. Also note I am not from the US, so it is unlikely I fit into whatever weird party conceptions you have over there anyway :) The point I was making that increasing numbers and diversity in something means more stuff is produced and there is greater innovation. It means the pool of candidates for a given role is larger, allowing better selection. This is all self-e…

> as Bill Gates has said, doubling the size of your workforce cannot help but improve things

Especially for those who are paying the wages and don't like to be in a seller's market.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#377

Post by DanBC » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:15 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #151

rewqfdsa wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am dismissing your anecdote as mere coincidence. I can't justify on an intellectual basis doing anything else. Am I supposed to just listen and believe? > I have formally and informally studied certain things about social psychology Your continuing reliance on credentials isn't helping your credibility.

How are these kinds of rebuttals helpful? How are we learning anything more about your perspective on this issue by watching you police another commenter for providing their own narrative? Do you have something more to say than "I would need many thousands more narratives like this to care what you have to say"? Do you have a substantial criticism of what this particular narrative suggests?

> How are we learning anything more about your perspective on this issue

I learnt a lot. It was a pretty big flag.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#378

Post by memu » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:23 AM UTC

rewqfdsa wrote: post #205

memu wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Premise 1: There are some innate differences that obtain between people of different sexes. Conclusion: The gender disparity in computer science is the result of innate differences between the sexes. Seems legit...

You misunderstand. I'm not making a statement on the cause of the gender disparity in computer science. I'm making a higher-order argument about why we're so apt to attribute this difference to discrimination. I hope you understand the distinction even if you disagree with my argument. The idea is that if you believe that humans have no innate differences and you observe group differences, then you must attribute the…

>A lot of people take it as an article of faith that there are no human group differences, so they're forced to look for discrimination in order to explain the world. For these people, no amount of evidence can prove the fairness of the CS world, since the idea that (gender disparity -> discrimination) is a necessary logical consequence of their worldview.

I think that you would be hard pressed to find people who actually believe that. Most who point out problems with the CS environment probably feel no need to have any sort of robust view of innate differences between groups, and many are likely to be open to the possibility that some of the gender gap can be explained by such differences.

Note that much of the discussion of this issue has focused upon ways in which the CS culture is one which is overtly and unnecessarily hostile to women. It's not just that men vastly outnumber women in the field, it's that those men frequently engage in behaviors that are hostile, threatening, and demeaning to women. It is not implausible that these behaviors play a significant role in determining the gender imbalance in CS.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#379

Post by aninhumer » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:26 AM UTC

rewqfdsa wrote: post #87

Mz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't hurt my feelings. It does, however, make it harder for most women to participate here. The correct way to handle it is to either find out my gender or speak as if you do not know what it is instead of assuming I am male. If you do not know my gender, it takes very little effort to speak in a way that admits you do not know it: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/04/what-fool-be...

> It does, however, make it harder for most women to participate here I've seen many people make this claim, but I haven't seen anyone back it up with evidence. What do you mean by "harder"? Do you mean "more difficult"? In what way? Right now, I believe claims that tiny linguistic differences create meaningful barriers to female participation in technology are all specious. I could be convinced otherwise, but have s…

>English is not structured to be gender-neutral. I'm not going to use awkward circumlocutions to avoid the possibility of offending someone.

Using singular they is hardly a "circumlocution", I do it without thinking about it. It's not hard to learn once you actually decide to take responsibility for your own speech.

And it's not a "possibility of offending", it's a "certainty of papercuts". If you habitually use male pronouns you will inevitably refer to women with them, and they will most likely be put off by your apparent assumption.

Re: What Really Keeps Women Out of Tech

#380

Post by davmre » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 9:32 AM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #372

briandear wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why should we force that "interest." If girls don't want to do it, why should we be "encouraging" it. We should encourage everyone to follow their passion and talents regardless of what those might be.

I agree with the original post, however the question here is something to the tune of: "do women not like it or are they being pushed away (passively) by social factors?" If it's the former, then everything is fine, if it's the latter then there is room for improvement.

There's essentially no evidence that women are biologically predisposed against CS. There's quite a lot of evidence that social factors do push women away. That doesn't guarantee that there's no biological component, but even if there were, we'd still want to fix the social factors.