4 ms·

The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above

The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above is a different problem. In that situation we are trying to not be hostile to a specific group. That's really a much easier problem to identify (not solve) because hostile behavior is hostile behavior, no matter who you are. It's incredibly important to solve that problem, but there we really have a universal solutions: treat people with respect, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Build policies that enforce that respect and hopefully build to a cultural shift where respect is assumed. But "appealing to minority groups" is another problem entirely. We're assuming that we have a problem that is due to some inherent bias in the way our culture has portrayed or encouraged a behavior. In this case that boys are more interested in tech because they got "STEM toys" as kids or that the toys that are available appeal more to boys or that the messaging surrounding tech is unconsciously biased towards boys. None of those problems involve being hostile towards girls. We also assume (correctly or incorrectly) that adjusting that bias could bring a better balance to this area. That involves targeting a message or policy to a specific group. In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" and are presumably trying to say "how do we get girls more interested in technology". I would argue that "don't be hostile" is only part of the problem, it does not address inherent cultural bias. If we assume that bias exists, then we need to make assumptions about girls and build solutions accordingly.

ucaetano 9y ago
> In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows us that more women get engineering degrees and fewer computer science degrees since 1980? It shows us that more women get degrees period, actually. It's also showing us a snapshot in time: women between the ages of 18-22. That doesn't really address at all the problem of "girls before 18". Girls have only recently drawn even with boys in attendance in high school stem classes, and still lag quite a bit in computer science. And minorities do even worse [1]. Anecdotaly, my experience also bears this out. The First Robotics clubs in my area (aimed at ages 9-14) are majority boys, despite several teams (including my daughter's school) being coached by female engineers specifically hoping to encourage more girls. I don't think it's the wrong question. [1]: https://ngcproject.org/statistics https://ngcproject.org/statistics
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows that women were interested in tech, but something happened in the 80's that mostly killed that interest. So the problem isn't that females aren't interested, but that something kills that interest. What is that?
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      Well, for computer science, that does seem to be the case. But not for engineering, physical sciences or math. And considering that most people are granted a degree before they enter the workforce, I don't believe it can entirely be the workforce culture that's deterring them. So I guess I would argue that it's just as likely to be how we message technology as how we treat women in the workforce, if not both.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        Or it could be that computer science (what most people refer as "tech") came to be dominated by the boy's club videogame/nerd culture from the early 80's, which pushed women out. It goes back to another topic here on HN: I don't know of any other career so dominated by a culture as SWE/tech.

ucaetano 9y ago

> In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.

stinkytaco 9y ago
I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows us that more women get engineering degrees and fewer computer science degrees since 1980? It shows us that more women get degrees period, actually. It's also showing us a snapshot in time: women between the ages of 18-22. That doesn't really address at all the problem of "girls before 18". Girls have only recently drawn even with boys in attendance in high school stem classes, and still lag quite a bit in computer science. And minorities do even worse [1]. Anecdotaly, my experience also bears this out. The First Robotics clubs in my area (aimed at ages 9-14) are majority boys, despite several teams (including my daughter's school) being coached by female engineers specifically hoping to encourage more girls. I don't think it's the wrong question. [1]: https://ngcproject.org/statistics https://ngcproject.org/statistics
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > I'm not sure what that data shows us. It shows that women were interested in tech, but something happened in the 80's that mostly killed that interest. So the problem isn't that females aren't interested, but that something kills that interest. What is that?
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    Well, for computer science, that does seem to be the case. But not for engineering, physical sciences or math. And considering that most people are granted a degree before they enter the workforce, I don't believe it can entirely be the workforce culture that's deterring them. So I guess I would argue that it's just as likely to be how we message technology as how we treat women in the workforce, if not both.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      Or it could be that computer science (what most people refer as "tech") came to be dominated by the boy's club videogame/nerd culture from the early 80's, which pushed women out. It goes back to another topic here on HN: I don't know of any other career so dominated by a culture as SWE/tech.