4 ms·

The number of women studying computer science rose dramatically during the tech bubble and dropped off after the crash. I think we're going through a similar cy

The number of women studying computer science rose dramatically during the tech bubble and dropped off after the crash. I think we're going through a similar cycle. When programming is lucrative and viewed as high status, it becomes a target for feminists and they push for more female coders. When it's not high status anymore (when the funding environment contracts again), girls will stop enrolling in CS as much and feminists will stop targeting it as a powerful job that needs more women. It's my opinion that most women probably don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down, but in a bubble environment many women will gravitate towards CS because it's where the action is in the economy, and affirmative action makes it an artificially attractive choice for them. We're depicting programming and software as the way of the future in business in order to hype startups, so if most women don't really enjoy coding, that's very problematic for feminists. So there is huge resistance to the idea that most women aren't that into coding. It's like James mentions in his memo, from a logical perspective it's completely arbitrary to want to move women into software because it's mostly men, just like it would be arbitrary to advocate for more female miners or waste managers. The key to understanding the reaction to his memo is to acknowledge that it's born out of a feminist anxiety that if software is run by men, and the future of business is software, the future of business is still going to be dominated by men. So in context, his memo is really challenging the idea that women prefer economic equality.

tepe1 9y ago
> It's my opinion that most women don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down, but in a bubble environment many women will gravitate towards CS because it's where the action is in the economy, and feminists pave the way with aggressive affirmative action campaigns that make programming an artificially attractive choice for women. Why is this your opinion? Have you spoken to a lot of women? Have you conducted any kind of surveys or polls? Or are you just making up whatever fits your biases? > It's like James mentions in his memo, from a logical perspective it's completely arbitrary to want to move women into software because it's mostly men The naivete of HN never fails. It's perfectly rational for any business to want more women. Or minorities. Or even more children. Every business in the world wants the deepest and biggest talent pool possible. And of course, this is the real issue. Once programming is demystified and women do enter the field in force it'll be pretty hard for deeply mediocre javascript monkeys to command six figure salaries, won't it? All the fuss, all the whining -- it's completely self-serving. The idea that women can thrive in law, medicine and hard sciences but they can't master CSS is laughable. But here's the thing: it's not mastermind feminists who are driving this. It's capitalism. People can whine about feminism and uppity women taking their jerbs -- this is absolutely nothing new. Still, despite pervasive discrimination, the market is going to produce that talent. There was a time when people thought programming was difficult. Only eleet hackers could thrive in Sillicon Valley. Now middle schoolers build Android Apps in a couple of days. In the end businesses are going to search endlessly for more and better talent, people will gravitate to the jobs that produce the most stable income streams, and everybody is going to strive to keep the market open and fair. You can fight this or whine about fantasy feminist schemes or you can embrace a future where the field has been dramatically opened to all comers.
- ViktorV 9y ago
  You were right on calling him out with his opinion. But you make the same mistake: > But here's the thing: it's not mastermind feminists who are driving this. It's capitalism. "Have you conducted any kind of surveys or polls? Or are you just making up whatever fits your biases?" To be honest: It is probably a mix of the societal pressure from feminists, and you are right capitalism too. The hard thing is that this is not hard science, no one can know the real ratio of the two. For me it seems you're stating this like every societal changes root was better productivity ( communism, French revolution ? ). > The idea that women can thrive in law, medicine and hard sciences but they can't master CSS is laughable. I don't see women thrive in math, physics, engineering science, but I might be wrong. Biology is a good counter example though. To be honest I think it is perfectly possible that you are right in everything! But I'm also sure that there is no human being on this planet who could say that he understands this problem 100% while being fully rational, and not let the emotions punch trough here and there. The point of my comment is that: I see one side as "There might be other factors" and the other is "There are no other factors". The second one is a much harder statement.
- js8 9y ago
  >> It's my opinion that most women don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down > Why is this your opinion? It is my opinion as well, and I'll explain why. I suspected it based on anecdotal evidence from women I talked to (small sample), but in the recent discussions, I found this very convincing (as you can see from my comment there): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15025724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15025724
maehwasu 9y ago
> When programming is lucrative and viewed as high status, it becomes a target for feminists and they push for more female coders. When it's not high status anymore (when the funding environment contracts again), girls will stop enrolling in CS as much and feminists will stop targeting it as a powerful job that needs more women. Shhhhh, we're not supposed to mention incentives.
ordu 9y ago
> It's my opinion that most women probably don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down... Yes. But why most women don't want to be programmers? Damore pointed to some reasons, but they are not convincing. Society makes girls to belive that CS is not for girls. There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. > So in context, his memo is really challenging the idea that women prefer economic equality. Maybe. But the point is if this is so, than this preferences should be considered carefully and probably equalized.
- js8 9y ago
  > There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? Or she should change? There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture!
  - euyyn 9y ago
    It matters a great deal, to tech companies that are fighting to get the best talent in the world, that the pool misses half its potential candidates.
  - ordu 9y ago
    > Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If there are huge differences caused by nature, then it would be stupid to invest efforts to remove this differences by changing society. If there are huge differences caused by nurture, then changes to society can change nutrure and reduce differences. > I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? No, it does not. Any improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement. Changes is not the terminal goal but instrumental one. If there are reasons to make everyone to like garlic and to hate cauliflower, then we should consider to change nurture to change individual preferences. If there are no reasons than there are nothing to consider. If your preferences lead to economic inequality, if this preferences make hard to you to find job you like, than you should change your preferences, or at least shouldn't allow them to propagate to your descendants. > There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture! I cannot agree more.

tepe1 9y ago

> It's my opinion that most women don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down, but in a bubble environment many women will gravitate towards CS because it's where the action is in the economy, and feminists pave the way with aggressive affirmative action campaigns that make programming an artificially attractive choice for women. Why is this your opinion? Have you spoken to a lot of women? Have you conducted any kind of surveys or polls? Or are you just making up whatever fits your biases? > It's like James mentions in his memo, from a logical perspective it's completely arbitrary to want to move women into software because it's mostly men The naivete of HN never fails. It's perfectly rational for any business to want more women. Or minorities. Or even more children. Every business in the world wants the deepest and biggest talent pool possible. And of course, this is the real issue. Once programming is demystified and women do enter the field in force it'll be pretty hard for deeply mediocre javascript monkeys to command six figure salaries, won't it? All the fuss, all the whining -- it's completely self-serving. The idea that women can thrive in law, medicine and hard sciences but they can't master CSS is laughable. But here's the thing: it's not mastermind feminists who are driving this. It's capitalism. People can whine about feminism and uppity women taking their jerbs -- this is absolutely nothing new. Still, despite pervasive discrimination, the market is going to produce that talent. There was a time when people thought programming was difficult. Only eleet hackers could thrive in Sillicon Valley. Now middle schoolers build Android Apps in a couple of days. In the end businesses are going to search endlessly for more and better talent, people will gravitate to the jobs that produce the most stable income streams, and everybody is going to strive to keep the market open and fair. You can fight this or whine about fantasy feminist schemes or you can embrace a future where the field has been dramatically opened to all comers.

ViktorV 9y ago
You were right on calling him out with his opinion. But you make the same mistake: > But here's the thing: it's not mastermind feminists who are driving this. It's capitalism. "Have you conducted any kind of surveys or polls? Or are you just making up whatever fits your biases?" To be honest: It is probably a mix of the societal pressure from feminists, and you are right capitalism too. The hard thing is that this is not hard science, no one can know the real ratio of the two. For me it seems you're stating this like every societal changes root was better productivity ( communism, French revolution ? ). > The idea that women can thrive in law, medicine and hard sciences but they can't master CSS is laughable. I don't see women thrive in math, physics, engineering science, but I might be wrong. Biology is a good counter example though. To be honest I think it is perfectly possible that you are right in everything! But I'm also sure that there is no human being on this planet who could say that he understands this problem 100% while being fully rational, and not let the emotions punch trough here and there. The point of my comment is that: I see one side as "There might be other factors" and the other is "There are no other factors". The second one is a much harder statement.
js8 9y ago
>> It's my opinion that most women don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down > Why is this your opinion? It is my opinion as well, and I'll explain why. I suspected it based on anecdotal evidence from women I talked to (small sample), but in the recent discussions, I found this very convincing (as you can see from my comment there): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15025724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15025724

maehwasu 9y ago

> When programming is lucrative and viewed as high status, it becomes a target for feminists and they push for more female coders. When it's not high status anymore (when the funding environment contracts again), girls will stop enrolling in CS as much and feminists will stop targeting it as a powerful job that needs more women. Shhhhh, we're not supposed to mention incentives.

ordu 9y ago

> It's my opinion that most women probably don't want to be programmers/ICs deep down... Yes. But why most women don't want to be programmers? Damore pointed to some reasons, but they are not convincing. Society makes girls to belive that CS is not for girls. There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. > So in context, his memo is really challenging the idea that women prefer economic equality. Maybe. But the point is if this is so, than this preferences should be considered carefully and probably equalized.

js8 9y ago
> There are some differences caused by hormone levels, but I belive that differences caused by nurture is much more influential. Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? Or she should change? There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture!
- euyyn 9y ago
  It matters a great deal, to tech companies that are fighting to get the best talent in the world, that the pool misses half its potential candidates.
- ordu 9y ago
  > Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If there are huge differences caused by nature, then it would be stupid to invest efforts to remove this differences by changing society. If there are huge differences caused by nurture, then changes to society can change nutrure and reduce differences. > I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? No, it does not. Any improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement. Changes is not the terminal goal but instrumental one. If there are reasons to make everyone to like garlic and to hate cauliflower, then we should consider to change nurture to change individual preferences. If there are no reasons than there are nothing to consider. If your preferences lead to economic inequality, if this preferences make hard to you to find job you like, than you should change your preferences, or at least shouldn't allow them to propagate to your descendants. > There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture! I cannot agree more.