8 ms·

I'm always surprised by the strong underlying assumption that removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%. There's research to su

I'm always surprised by the strong underlying assumption that removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%. There's research to suggest that this assumption is flawed: [0] Moreover, the idea that anatomy and physiology don't condition preferences or behaviors flies in the face of everything we know about human biology and (embodied) cognition. Let's recognize gender/feminist theory for what they are: a sociological theories, not scientific ones. Equality, in the sense of gender or racial equality, does not mean we're all the same de naturae. It means we should be treated the same de jure. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Things_Women_and_People_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Sex_Differences_in_Interests https://www.researchgate.net/publication/38061313_Men_and_Th...

smadge 10y ago
Why are you answering nature vs nurture with (I paraphrase) "100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan"? This debate is cliched at this point. From the study you linked to: "As suggested by previous literature and the present study, interests stabilize at an early age. Given the essential role of family and other environmental influences in the socialization process of children and their interest development, it may be important for parents, educators, and counselors to be involved early on, when interests seem more malleable." i.e. the study accepts the theory that environment, family and in general socialization, contribute to a child's interests. This is the exact opposite of what you claim in your comment "It is important to note that group differences do not speak for every individual within a group,and it is not the purpose of the present study to reify the stereo-types that men and women are interested in their “traditional”areas." The study is talking about d < 1 effect sizes. That means that there is a still a significant part of the group that is more interested in a subject than a significant part of the other group. Think of two mostly overlapping normal curves. "it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide a detailed exploration of the environmental, social, and biological factors that have contributed to the development of these sex differences" The study makes no claim as to the cause of these sex differences. They only point out that there is a difference and suggest "environmental, social, and biological factors" as the cause. Again, the opposite of what you claim.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan What a strange comment (you don't paraphrase; you caricature)! I'm not saying any of this! Where did you get the impression that I was? I agree with all your points, btw. The existence of these differences doesn't enlighten us as to their causes, proximal or distal. Rather, we have much evidence showing that anatomy and physiology influence cognition. Does this explain the gender gap completely? That's unlikely, but it's equally unlikely that the gender gap would disappear if only the "mean old white men stopped being jerks". tl;dr: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature".
  - smadge 10y ago
    I'm sorry I caricatured your position. I think we agree that the assumption that "removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%" is false. The variability of sex differences in vocational interests probably accounts for more of the gap than bias in the hiring process, i.e. "mean old white men". I can also accept that physiology influences cognition, although where we disagree is how much of a factor that is in the gender gap, or how relevant it is to any sort of policy decision. Removing bias in the hiring process wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Telling girls that they can do and be whatever they want wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Changing the masculine and sexist culture in STEM wont completely solve the issue either. There is basically nothing that can remove the hypothetical physiological factors contributing to gender disparity in STEM fields. So why are we even talking about it? It derails the conversation. There are things that can be done, and we should do them. Until we reach the limit of what is possible according to your hypothetical physiological explanation, why bother even bringing it up?
xenadu02 10y ago
You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. There are structural problems that make the available talent pool unequal per-capita anyway (women being socially pressured out of software engineering, resulting in a lack of role models, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of other factors). Part of changing the dynamic will take decades because _currently_ a smaller percentage of all women in the world are software engineers vs men. No one wants to hire incompetent women engineers just to fulfill a quota and all the people I've talked to about this seem to recognize and understand it. Mostly what seems to piss people off (and rightly so) is when people try to claim there isn't any bias, there isn't any problem, and everything is just fine as-is. If all else were equal, what total percentage of women would want to be software engineers and would be good at it? I have no idea, but it does seem clear that we are far away from that number. As long as we can all agree that the structural problems should be addressed then I think we also understand that it isn't going to be 50/50 overnight and it might never be 50/50. But 90/10 is clearly unbalanced in a way that is not correlated with women's aptitude or ability to write software. I think we should be a welcoming community and make reasonable efforts to make anyone who wants to join it feel comfortable. I don't understand the constant desire to rules-lawyer or dismiss such a simple and straightforward idea: don't be an asshole, be considerate of others, encourage those who are interested to learn. In the end I have to think it is partially driven by fear and self-doubt, like maybe if we let black people or more women into the club it will all be over. Global demand for software engineering talent outstrips the supply and software is eating the world. My talents have never been in higher demand. My life is not diminished by nursing mother facilities, unisex bathrooms, coding events in black neighborhoods, attempts to reduce bias in interviews, et al.
- omginternets 10y ago
  > You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. "Gender gap" is a fancy way of saying "not 50%". More to the point, assumptions are often unstated, as I'm sure you know. I agree with you insofar as the mechanisms you point out are likely contributers to this so-called gap. Rather, I'm highlighting that -- unpopular though this notion may be in certain circles -- part of this effect is likely to be driven by bottom-up biological factors. How big is this part? I haven't got a clue. I'm copying my "tl;dr" from the above comment because it applies here as well: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature", rather than "nurture".
etjossem 10y ago
20% of CS degrees are awarded to women, but they get only 10% of entry-level software jobs. Please stop blaming the pipeline for the difference. Interested, qualified women are being pushed away from the field by bias and attrition, and that's a problem we should be trying to solve.
- extra88 10y ago
  I'm sure there are problems with many hiring process and work environments that result in fewer women in those positions, However, where do the other 50% of CS degree-holding women end up if not in entry-level software jobs? If they have a greater tendency to go to graduate school or to take jobs that make use of their degree but don't fit the cookie-cutter definition of a software job, that's not a bad outcome. My impression is there are a lot of programming jobs where having a terrible work/life balance is expected. I'm a man and I would avoid such jobs. Perhaps women, including those who earn CS degrees, are statistically more likely than men to feel the way I do about work/life balance. The result would be fewer women working in the field without the environment being sexist or discriminatory.
  - etjossem 10y ago
    I agree. Work/life balance is absolutely part of the problem - just like maternity leave and other work environment factors. All of this leads to attrition and a chilling effect on sourcing. But we should still be solving for bias at the interviewing stage.
- tropo 10y ago
  "pushed away" is so negative. How about "pulled away"? Maybe it isn't politically correct to desire being a stay-at-home mom, but it happens rather often. Sometimes this is an unexpected turn of events, with changing life priorities. Sometimes it is the goal right from the start. I met a woman in college who literally said she was getting her MRS degree. That is, she went to college to meet a suitable husband and become a "Mrs.", as in "Mrs. Doe". It happens. This is real. It's not a problem to be solved unless you have a negative attitude toward homemakers. People choose their own path in life. This might not meet your standard, but your standard might not maximize life satisfaction for everybody.

smadge 10y ago

Why are you answering nature vs nurture with (I paraphrase) "100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan"? This debate is cliched at this point. From the study you linked to: "As suggested by previous literature and the present study, interests stabilize at an early age. Given the essential role of family and other environmental influences in the socialization process of children and their interest development, it may be important for parents, educators, and counselors to be involved early on, when interests seem more malleable." i.e. the study accepts the theory that environment, family and in general socialization, contribute to a child's interests. This is the exact opposite of what you claim in your comment "It is important to note that group differences do not speak for every individual within a group,and it is not the purpose of the present study to reify the stereo-types that men and women are interested in their “traditional”areas." The study is talking about d < 1 effect sizes. That means that there is a still a significant part of the group that is more interested in a subject than a significant part of the other group. Think of two mostly overlapping normal curves. "it is beyond the scope of the present study to provide a detailed exploration of the environmental, social, and biological factors that have contributed to the development of these sex differences" The study makes no claim as to the cause of these sex differences. They only point out that there is a difference and suggest "environmental, social, and biological factors" as the cause. Again, the opposite of what you claim.

omginternets 10y ago
>100% nature and anyone who says otherwise is an irrational charlatan What a strange comment (you don't paraphrase; you caricature)! I'm not saying any of this! Where did you get the impression that I was? I agree with all your points, btw. The existence of these differences doesn't enlighten us as to their causes, proximal or distal. Rather, we have much evidence showing that anatomy and physiology influence cognition. Does this explain the gender gap completely? That's unlikely, but it's equally unlikely that the gender gap would disappear if only the "mean old white men stopped being jerks". tl;dr: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature".
- smadge 10y ago
  I'm sorry I caricatured your position. I think we agree that the assumption that "removing interviewer/managerial bias will result in a gender ratio of 50%" is false. The variability of sex differences in vocational interests probably accounts for more of the gap than bias in the hiring process, i.e. "mean old white men". I can also accept that physiology influences cognition, although where we disagree is how much of a factor that is in the gender gap, or how relevant it is to any sort of policy decision. Removing bias in the hiring process wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Telling girls that they can do and be whatever they want wont solve the gender gap entirely, but it will help it. Changing the masculine and sexist culture in STEM wont completely solve the issue either. There is basically nothing that can remove the hypothetical physiological factors contributing to gender disparity in STEM fields. So why are we even talking about it? It derails the conversation. There are things that can be done, and we should do them. Until we reach the limit of what is possible according to your hypothetical physiological explanation, why bother even bringing it up?

xenadu02 10y ago

You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. There are structural problems that make the available talent pool unequal per-capita anyway (women being socially pressured out of software engineering, resulting in a lack of role models, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of other factors). Part of changing the dynamic will take decades because _currently_ a smaller percentage of all women in the world are software engineers vs men. No one wants to hire incompetent women engineers just to fulfill a quota and all the people I've talked to about this seem to recognize and understand it. Mostly what seems to piss people off (and rightly so) is when people try to claim there isn't any bias, there isn't any problem, and everything is just fine as-is. If all else were equal, what total percentage of women would want to be software engineers and would be good at it? I have no idea, but it does seem clear that we are far away from that number. As long as we can all agree that the structural problems should be addressed then I think we also understand that it isn't going to be 50/50 overnight and it might never be 50/50. But 90/10 is clearly unbalanced in a way that is not correlated with women's aptitude or ability to write software. I think we should be a welcoming community and make reasonable efforts to make anyone who wants to join it feel comfortable. I don't understand the constant desire to rules-lawyer or dismiss such a simple and straightforward idea: don't be an asshole, be considerate of others, encourage those who are interested to learn. In the end I have to think it is partially driven by fear and self-doubt, like maybe if we let black people or more women into the club it will all be over. Global demand for software engineering talent outstrips the supply and software is eating the world. My talents have never been in higher demand. My life is not diminished by nursing mother facilities, unisex bathrooms, coding events in black neighborhoods, attempts to reduce bias in interviews, et al.

omginternets 10y ago
> You're the one introducing a 50% number, I haven't seen anyone make that assertion. "Gender gap" is a fancy way of saying "not 50%". More to the point, assumptions are often unstated, as I'm sure you know. I agree with you insofar as the mechanisms you point out are likely contributers to this so-called gap. Rather, I'm highlighting that -- unpopular though this notion may be in certain circles -- part of this effect is likely to be driven by bottom-up biological factors. How big is this part? I haven't got a clue. I'm copying my "tl;dr" from the above comment because it applies here as well: if we're going to have an honest debate, we have to entertain the notion that at least part of the gender gap is the result of "nature", rather than "nurture".

etjossem 10y ago

20% of CS degrees are awarded to women, but they get only 10% of entry-level software jobs. Please stop blaming the pipeline for the difference. Interested, qualified women are being pushed away from the field by bias and attrition, and that's a problem we should be trying to solve.

extra88 10y ago
I'm sure there are problems with many hiring process and work environments that result in fewer women in those positions, However, where do the other 50% of CS degree-holding women end up if not in entry-level software jobs? If they have a greater tendency to go to graduate school or to take jobs that make use of their degree but don't fit the cookie-cutter definition of a software job, that's not a bad outcome. My impression is there are a lot of programming jobs where having a terrible work/life balance is expected. I'm a man and I would avoid such jobs. Perhaps women, including those who earn CS degrees, are statistically more likely than men to feel the way I do about work/life balance. The result would be fewer women working in the field without the environment being sexist or discriminatory.
- etjossem 10y ago
  I agree. Work/life balance is absolutely part of the problem - just like maternity leave and other work environment factors. All of this leads to attrition and a chilling effect on sourcing. But we should still be solving for bias at the interviewing stage.
tropo 10y ago
"pushed away" is so negative. How about "pulled away"? Maybe it isn't politically correct to desire being a stay-at-home mom, but it happens rather often. Sometimes this is an unexpected turn of events, with changing life priorities. Sometimes it is the goal right from the start. I met a woman in college who literally said she was getting her MRS degree. That is, she went to college to meet a suitable husband and become a "Mrs.", as in "Mrs. Doe". It happens. This is real. It's not a problem to be solved unless you have a negative attitude toward homemakers. People choose their own path in life. This might not meet your standard, but your standard might not maximize life satisfaction for everybody.