3 ms·

>I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians st

>I don't understand your last line. Historians dig up skeletons all the time. (As, literally, do archeologists.) Surely you aren't suggesting that historians stop what they are doing? Quoting an analysis from the past, saying situation is still the same in top tech companies and implying that current situation is due to "men pushing women out" . He even quotes an internal google memo that says " women overall are biologically less suited to programming" as an example of men today bent on pushing women out. Hope you see the controversy part. Surely you can see this article is not purely historical curiosity and not at all like an article about history of food safety conditions.

eesmith 9y ago
I have now read the article thanks to merricksb. This is not due to "an analysis from the past" but to a recent analysis of the past. Hicks' book just came out. What do you mean by "still the same"? Hicks describes situations in the 1960s and 1970s which don't exist now, like women being forced out the company if they get married, having babies in secret so they don't get fired, and managers refusing to structure things so that men work under women. Clearly that's not "still the same" in modern work environments, and Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial, and it's not incompatible with your statement that it's the best time to be a women in this industry. The most controversial point seems to be the statement that "simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem" - an argument that the new historical study supports. What is the skeleton that should not be dug up?
- dominotw 9y ago
  > It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controversial. Infact, 'sexism in the computer industry' is one the most controversial topic on HN. Why do you think this article getting flipped between flagged/unflagged status if its not controversial. I agree that its still a problem, controversial part is this, sexists are a problem not "men". > an argument that the new historical study supports. But you say this "Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same." if conditions aren't they same how does the study support it? You are saying variables for the experiment aren't the same but experiment will yield the same results regardless.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I already addressed this with my last comment. Saying historical context is still true and implying solutions won't work because of something that happened decades ago. > simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem - an argument that the new historical study supports. > Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. Don't those statements contradict each other?
      - eesmith 9y ago
        As far as I can tell, you are picking at a small part of the topic. I think you are making the "not all men" argument. I really don't care to discuss it any more. I found the underlying historical research quite interesting and insightful. While your original comment, even after I finally was able to read the article, made it sound like you objected to the "digging up of skeletons" that Hicks did. I think it's instead that you disagree with the shallow interpretation that some WSJ commenter made. shrug. Okay, great. I still think it's worthwhile to dig up skeletons. > Don't those statements contradict each other? No. "It's the best time ever to be a Native American", because (for example) the US government no longer forces them to send their children to Indian schools where they aren't allowed to speak their language. But it's still not great to be a Native American compared to other peoples, for a large number of metrics.

eesmith 9y ago

I have now read the article thanks to merricksb. This is not due to "an analysis from the past" but to a recent analysis of the past. Hicks' book just came out. What do you mean by "still the same"? Hicks describes situations in the 1960s and 1970s which don't exist now, like women being forced out the company if they get married, having babies in secret so they don't get fired, and managers refusing to structure things so that men work under women. Clearly that's not "still the same" in modern work environments, and Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial, and it's not incompatible with your statement that it's the best time to be a women in this industry. The most controversial point seems to be the statement that "simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem" - an argument that the new historical study supports. What is the skeleton that should not be dug up?

dominotw 9y ago
> It seems he's saying that there's still a problem with sexism in the computer industry. I don't think that's controversial Thats precisely what is controversial. Infact, 'sexism in the computer industry' is one the most controversial topic on HN. Why do you think this article getting flipped between flagged/unflagged status if its not controversial. I agree that its still a problem, controversial part is this, sexists are a problem not "men". > an argument that the new historical study supports. But you say this "Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same." if conditions aren't they same how does the study support it? You are saying variables for the experiment aren't the same but experiment will yield the same results regardless.
- eesmith 9y ago
  Then I'm back to not understanding what you meant by "create some controversy where there is none". What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? If I understand your last comment, you would be happier with the title "The First Women in Tech Didn't Leave, Sexist Men Pushed Them Out"? That somehow seems worse. Saying "Sexists" or "Sexist People" would be less correct, as sexist women - and certainly there were many - didn't have the managerial power to do the pushing in the British computing field during the 1960s and 1970s.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > That somehow seems worse. Why? > What is the non-controversial topic you think was raised/created by this piece, which it should not have done? I think I already addressed this with my last comment. Saying historical context is still true and implying solutions won't work because of something that happened decades ago. > simply educating more women and minorities to be engineers won’t solve the problem - an argument that the new historical study supports. > Mims isn't trying to say those conditions are the same. Don't those statements contradict each other?
    - eesmith 9y ago
      As far as I can tell, you are picking at a small part of the topic. I think you are making the "not all men" argument. I really don't care to discuss it any more. I found the underlying historical research quite interesting and insightful. While your original comment, even after I finally was able to read the article, made it sound like you objected to the "digging up of skeletons" that Hicks did. I think it's instead that you disagree with the shallow interpretation that some WSJ commenter made. shrug. Okay, great. I still think it's worthwhile to dig up skeletons. > Don't those statements contradict each other? No. "It's the best time ever to be a Native American", because (for example) the US government no longer forces them to send their children to Indian schools where they aren't allowed to speak their language. But it's still not great to be a Native American compared to other peoples, for a large number of metrics.