Women: Learn to Program This Summer • Hacker News Board

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#601

Post by wsy » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 12:32 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #595

wsy wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about software developers. In the 1950s, most programmers were female. It doesn't seem to be a profession where male biological characteristics are essential to be successful. All the examples you mentioned are non-essential for being a good software developer.

We were talking about the existence of gender based 90/10 skews. As to femle programmers in the 1950’s, do you really think that is comparable?

Yes, in the context of a program to educate women specifically about how to code.

Comparable to what? I mentioned programming in the 1950s because all traits labeled in this discussion as "boys/males biologically have more of it than girls/women" have been as important for programming in the 1950s as they are now, it seems to me

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#602

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #487

elliekelly wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my favorite examples from the Boston Symphony Orchestra[1]: > For the auditions, the musicians would be playing behind a screen, in an effort to remove all chance of bias and allow for a merit based selection only - a selection that would hopefully increase the number of women in the orchestra. > To their surprise, their initial audition results still skewed male. > Then they asked the musicians to take off th…

Results are not statistically significant. https://medium.com/@jsmp/orchestrating-false-beliefs-about-g... >> Women are about 5 percentage points more likely to be hired than are men in a completely blind audition, although the effect is not statistically significant. The effect is nil, however, when there is a semifinal round, perhaps as a result of the unusual effects of the semifinal round. The impact for all roun…

[deleted]

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#603

Post by camelNotation » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

krastanov wrote: post #300

camelNotation wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It blows my mind that so many people are still unaware of the gender equality paradox. People constantly bring this up, constantly ask that same question, constantly get the same response. Women self-select into certain fields at higher rates than others, men do the exact same thing. Can we move on now? There is no problem to solve.

Is it not important to understand where these choices come from? Not because we have to enforce any particular distribution of genders, rather because it is useful to understand any differences that exist and whether they are truly personal choices.

Sure it's important and maybe one day we will understand:

1. Why it happens

2. Whether or not it is positive or negative

3. How to engineer society to work differently

But as it stands now, we don't know any of that and programs that try to force women into STEM fields are just weird. I mean, I am all for programs that help them feel welcome and accepted and uninhibited in STEM careers because some of them do choose to be programmers and such and they should be respected and treated fairly. But programs that look at the gender gap and assume it is a problem that needs to be fixed are just dumb.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#604

Post by Grustaf » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 4:07 PM UTC

wsy wrote: post #601

Grustaf wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were talking about the existence of gender based 90/10 skews. As to femle programmers in the 1950’s, do you really think that is comparable?

Yes, in the context of a program to educate women specifically about how to code. Comparable to what? I mentioned programming in the 1950s because all traits labeled in this discussion as "boys/males biologically have more of it than girls/women" have been as important for programming in the 1950s as they are now, it seems to me

So you think the women that worked as “computers” in the fifties entered the field because they had a passion for electronic machines?

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#605

Post by wsy » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 10:36 PM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #604

wsy wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in the context of a program to educate women specifically about how to code. Comparable to what? I mentioned programming in the 1950s because all traits labeled in this discussion as "boys/males biologically have more of it than girls/women" have been as important for programming in the 1950s as they are now, it seems to me

So you think the women that worked as “computers” in the fifties entered the field because they had a passion for electronic machines?

These women were much more into 'things' than 'people'.

It would be your turn now to explain which biological characteristics of men cause a 90/10 distribution in coders today, and do not apply to coding in the 1950s.

Re: Women: Learn to Program This Summer

#606

Post by adingus » Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #208

adingus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says why in the article. You should read it.

Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ? They include: Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." (This is nowhere near the worst guideline violation in this thread, but it's such a precise one.)

Are you insinuating I didn't read the guidelines?