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

Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

ilaba.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#51

Post by shardling »

mhansen wrote: post #29
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #12

The word "fact" is used extremely loosely in this article. While the first "fact" is in fact factual it then very quickly goes down the rabbit hole of personal opinion/perspective. By the time we get to "fact 3" the author isn't even pretending any more and the "fact" is just a bizarre "you're a mathematician, you can solve this!!1!" point... I'm happy to have a discussion about gender politics/equality, this article…

You might be interested that this is such a common way to derail conversations about privilege that it's made part of 'Derailing for Dummies'. http://birdofparadox.wordpress.com/derailing-for-dummies-goo...

So, that website pulls my least favorite "social justice" trick: pretending that every oppressive action is willful and premeditated. A lot of those issues are very, very subtle from a privileged POV, and it doesn't do a damn bit of good to pretend otherwise.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#52

Post by erikpukinskis »

Claudus wrote: post #38

I've worked with a lot of programmers. Some of them have character flaws that make them unpleasant to work with. These character flaws do not affect their ability to "get the job done", but I'd rather not work with them and take steps to avoid doing so when possible. From a link in the article: Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply uns…

My observation of the subject is that many people have an intuition, gut feeling, opinion formed from personal experience, etc. that men and women in general have innate differences that make men (or women) more suitable for certain functions.

Sounds like you'd like to ignore the science to the contrary and just rely on your gut.

You're entitled to that, but I've found science to have a lot of usefulness.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#53

Post by bromang »

[deleted] wrote: post #18
return0 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know there is a gender pay gap. The question is: how do we know it's not justified? Presumably the pay reflects the work done

[deleted]

This does not demonstrate any bias unless you decide that we can assume men and women with the same CV are equal in all respects

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#54

Post by 7952 »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #12

The word "fact" is used extremely loosely in this article. While the first "fact" is in fact factual it then very quickly goes down the rabbit hole of personal opinion/perspective. By the time we get to "fact 3" the author isn't even pretending any more and the "fact" is just a bizarre "you're a mathematician, you can solve this!!1!" point... I'm happy to have a discussion about gender politics/equality, this article…

The benefit of an article like this is that it makes you think about your own actions in a new way. Your are making it about politics by choice. Considering how embedded sexism is that would be a bad choice. Does this match your own experience or not? Is your desire for facts merely confirmation bias for your own anecdotal views.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#55

Post by speeder »

nagrom wrote: post #48
return0 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- The fight for gender equality is exclusively 20th century thing (correction 18+ century and limited to the industrial world); never happened before - Gender equality wasn't imposed in society by an external entity, it was brought about because it was essential (not only on moral grounds but economic as well) - Most societies for most of history were less hostile to homo/bi-sexuality than the modern (pre-1970s) West…

- The fight for gender equality is exclusively 20th century thing; never happened before As another poster already commented, and you already acknowledged, the fight for gender equality has been continuing for at least three centuries. It certainly isn't exclusively a 20th century thing. - Gender equality wasn't imposed in society by an external entity, it was brought about because it was essential It's certainly not…

Note to self: don't try to upvote on mobile phone, it might result in me downvoting a awesome post by accident and no way to fix it.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#56

Post by bromang »

fhars wrote: post #15
sprash wrote: post #6

The average man is pumped full of a hormone called testosterone. This leads them to take more risks and have a generally more aggressive way of doing things. This fact has been scientifically proven over and over again. In a fast moving market with high competition you need these qualities hence it is no secret why in average males are more employable in tech than women. This is a healthy market response and has noth…

Actually, organizing markets in a way that they favour one gender over another is an instance of sexist bias.

but perhaps there are reasons other than sexist bias for organization that favours one sex over another.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#57

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

almost wrote: post #50
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is so shallow its self that I didn't feel it deserved my time for a deep criticism. The author just stop justifying their points after the first couple. It is like they starting writing a really good piece, then got two "myths" in and then switched to random opinion mode.

The underlying issues do deserve discussion though whether or not the quality of writing (in a blog post) meets your personal standards.

Of course they do. Sexism is a very real issue. It is an issue that directly impacts people's lives.

However I've been to this rodeo before many times, and unfortunately if you get drawn into a discussion that is, at the foundation, based on personal opinion/perspective then you never get anywhere.

You need to try and stick to the science. When the study that the author used as their first point was published there was some great discussion that focused around the science of sexism.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#58

Post by [deleted] »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #47
andreasvc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on, just substitute rebuttal or response for fact. Do you dismiss a FAQ because the questions aren't actually asked frequently?! I think we should be discussing the actual content, not the form of presentation.

But I did criticise the content? Everything after the first paragraph is directly criticising the content.

[deleted]

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#59

Post by lutusp »

return0 wrote: post #41
lutusp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fight for gender equality is exclusively 20th century thing; never happened before No, this is false. All that differed in historical accounts of gender struggles were the methods and the scale, not the goals. Do the names Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony ring any bells (19th century)? Or Margaret Cavendish from the 17th century? Suggested reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism > M…

I would not consider a few exceptional single individuals (there were others, beyond the recent anglo-saxon part of history) to constitute a "movement". The social equilibrium at the time did not leave a place for gender equality until the 20th century (industrialization/the need for women to work away from home/the washing machine etc). WRT homosexuality - you are confusing cause and effect. The Bible was what broug…

> I would not consider a few exceptional single individuals (there were others, beyond the recent anglo-saxon part of history) to constitute a "movement".

Please read the post to which I replied -- no mention of "movement". The post said "The fight for gender equality is exclusively 20th century thing; never happened before." That's false -- this is not a new fight. All that has changed is the scale, a factor I addressed by using that word.

> WRT homosexuality - you are confusing cause and effect. The Bible was what brought homosexuality to such a negative light in the christian/western world.

The Bible is a historical record of old values and practices, and homophobia is included in that record for a reason. The Bible's influence on modern history is an effect, but its contents allude to causes that were present in ancient times.

I doubt that people are taught by the Bible to be homophobes, or to be intolerant in any other way -- that comes naturally to people with poor educations. All the Bible does is encourage the natural intolerance of the illiterate.

Re: Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

#60

Post by aptwebapps »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #52
Claudus wrote: post #38

I've worked with a lot of programmers. Some of them have character flaws that make them unpleasant to work with. These character flaws do not affect their ability to "get the job done", but I'd rather not work with them and take steps to avoid doing so when possible. From a link in the article: Renowned conductors have asserted that female musicians have "smaller techniques," are more temperamental and are simply uns…

My observation of the subject is that many people have an intuition, gut feeling, opinion formed from personal experience, etc. that men and women in general have innate differences that make men (or women) more suitable for certain functions. Sounds like you'd like to ignore the science to the contrary and just rely on your gut. You're entitled to that, but I've found science to have a lot of usefulness.

I think a more careful reading of the whole post, and particularly the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, will show that Claudus was not claiming that this feeling is true. The statement is that a lot of people feel a particular way. Do you really disagree that is the case?

For what it's worth, I think one of the points of the blog post is that this bias is more difficult to spot than Claudus's statement would imply, and I tend to agree with that.

Post reply on HN