6 ms·

I'm totally with Arrington on this one. The next time I see somebody complain about too few women in software I want to see them complain about too few men wor

I'm totally with Arrington on this one. The next time I see somebody complain about too few women in software I want to see them complain about too few men working in hair salons, too few men working in child day care centers, too few women working the trash pickup trucks, too few men in corporate HR, too few women in Tactial Special Ops teams. But I'll never see that because I think secretly deep down they know, gee, people are different, genders are different, and there's something about gender that just has this shaping force on our interests and talents. And that there's nothing wrong with that. Really, it will be okay. Just relax. Carry on. Instead let us all please focus on real problems and challenges like hunger, disease, WMD proliferation, climate change, pollution, education cost & disparity, etc.

greenlblue 16y ago
It's not about differences or different people having different interests. Technology and technology companies are major drivers of societal change and it is important to have as many different groups involved in that process as possible. That is the larger philosophical issue here and I don't think anyone can disagree with that.
- sz 16y ago
  If you want a group to become more involved with a process, they need to be interested in it first.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Exactly. And this was Arrington's point.
  - wanderr 16y ago
    So how do we get them interested?
    - zacharypinter 16y ago
      Television?
  - greenlblue 16y ago
    Well women are obviously interested why else would we be having this discussion? It obviously comes up and the fact that it keeps coming up means there is underlying issue that is not being addressed. Nobody is saying it's an issue that is easy to address but both educators and women in tech keep bringing up the issue so the incumbents are not doing a good job addressing it. Plus, it is in everyone interests to have all kinds of people be technologically savvy whether they are male or female.
    - ahlatimer 16y ago
      Except that a lot of the time this discussion isn't started by a female interested in entering the tech industry. I've seen a few posts by women in the industry railing against some sexist thing some other member did [1]. I've also seen a few articles by men saying the tech industry needs to be more open to women. And I've also seen articles by women who are not in the tech industry saying that the tech industry needs to get more women, even though they themselves aren't really trying to get into the industry. So, we have really one set of women with some sort of interest in actually being in the tech industry, but they're mostly talking about someone doing something stupid, which can and does happen in every other industry. I don't think a limited number of misogynistic instances is really indicative of the state of the industry. If someone can point out a recent article written by a woman who tried to enter the tech industry but couldn't because we're a sexist bunch, I'd love to read it. So far, though, I just haven't come across that. [1]: The one that comes to mind is the talk given for some Rails function a year or so ago. I don't remember who gave the talk or what it was about. I just remember it caused a big stink.
      - lingrush 16y ago
        Talk to the potential female CS majors and ask them why they changed their minds.
    - sz 16y ago
      > Well women are obviously interested why else would we be having this discussion? This isn't obvious. If you want to argue this point you need to offer evidence. > It obviously comes up and the fact that it keeps coming up means there is underlying issue that is not being addressed. Your conclusion that there is a cause not yet addressed doesn't follow. The recurrence of an argument can just as easily be attributed to arguers who can't admit they're wrong or don't understand their opponents, especially in this case when the arguers aren't female tech startup founders. > Nobody is saying it's an issue that is easy to address but both educators and women in tech keep bringing up the issue so the incumbents are not doing a good job addressing it. You didn't specify what the "issue" is. As ahlatimer pointed out, this claim needs support. And again, your conclusion doesn't follow, for the same reasons. > Plus, it is in everyone interests to have all kinds of people be technologically savvy whether they are male or female. A trivial statement. Ideally everyone would be savvy at everything. It seems like you're trying to argue that women are capable of something in this space that men are not, but I'm not sure what that is. Look, it may be that you have valid points, but you're embarrassing yourself with the way you argue them. Read [1] if you don't understand why. You're a consistent DH3, which means you contradict without justifying, hence the downvotes. Anecdotal evidence, studies, careful reasoning (that doesn't use the word "obvious"), etc. would help everyone understand the merits of your point of view better than repetition. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  Technology and technology companies are major drivers of societal change and it is important to have as many different groups involved in that process as possible. That is the larger philosophical issue here and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Yay for stakeholder representation and death-by-committee. Groups cannot be involved in doing things, only in preventing things. Individuals can do things, and it really doesn't matter what groups those individuals may be seen by others to be a part of. All that matters is whether they're willing to try something new and different, and whether everyone else feels like using whatever they build. No structure, no "process" for groups to get involved in and veto, just people doing interesting things and other people choosing whether to use those things.
fauigerzigerk 16y ago
"and there's something about gender that just has this shaping force on our interests and talents." What would that "something" and that "force" be?
philwelch 16y ago
"too few women in Tactial Special Ops teams" There's intermittent controversy over having women in combat. Countries that have tried it, incidentally, find that it's a liability because men tend to go apeshit protective when female soldiers get hurt. "But I'll never see that because I think secretly deep down they know, gee, people are different, genders are different, and there's something about gender that just has this shaping force on our interests and talents." If so, it may be helpful if more women were involved in software, because if women are different from men that probably extends to how they use software, and it would be good if software was better for women.
- lenni 16y ago
  I'm interested in the apeshit protective bit. Have you got something to read on it?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > find that it's a liability because men tend to go apeshit protective when female soldiers get hurt. Solution: all female battalions.
  - epochwolf 16y ago
    Rush Limbaugh made this suggestion in one of his books. (Albeit with a 1 week on, 3 weeks off rotation)
    - WiseWeasel 16y ago
      So you're saying the idea is nothing but the deranged rantings of a sociopath? That's an ad hominem logical fallacy, and doesn't refute the actual value of the concept.
      - epochwolf 16y ago
        I do believe you are reading far too much into my comment. It was merely a stated fact.[1] Given the way Rush Limbaugh is viewed I thought would be mildly amusing to make a slightly off-topic reference. 1. You can search for "amazon" on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.ht...
fauigerzigerk 16y ago
I wouldn't count too much on what people secretly "know" deep down but are unable to reason about. These things are usually stereotypes or religion, both of which have questionable qualities when it comes to analyzing causality.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  You don't believe that gender bears any kind of fundamental impact on emotional and intellectual development? I think that the things mentioned in this thread are proof enough. There is no reason why there wouldn't be more women in tech except that women (generally speaking, of course) don't find tech that desirable, just as men don't find working in a daycare center very desirable. In the whirlwind of 20th century liberation movements, people seem to forget that there really _are_ fundamental differences between certain types of people. Not differences like "women are only good at cleaning and men only think about sex", but differences like "women are generally more often disposed to child-rearing and men are generally more often disposed to computer programming". I don't see what good there is in ignoring these differences. Yes, some people took it too far and decided women shouldn't vote and blacks and whites couldn't intermingle, but that doesn't mean we go to the other extreme and plug our ears and refuse to believe that any one type of person is predisposed to a behavior, belief, or emotional status.
  - fauigerzigerk 16y ago
    The issue I have with what you and mkramlich say is that you're jumping from an observation to a conclusion about causality. I'm just asking, what is the basis for your assumptions about causality? You say that people took it too far in the past. Why was that? I think that they didn't just take it too far, they made a categorical and methodical mistake. They did not question the basis on which to make such assumptions. In that sense, you're making the same mistake today. [Edit] And don't forget that we're talking about something - web startups and entrepreneurship - that takes an incredibly broad range of capabilities that have nothing to do with having babies. It's not like we're talking about interest and talent for breast feeding. And by the way, I totally agree with Arrington. He doesn't say anything about why we see what we see though.
lingrush 16y ago
I do complain about not enough male nurses, where the gender difference is noticeable and is affecting the direction of the field or perceptions of the field itself. Yes, there should be some room for "gender differences" which is not necessarily distinguishable anyway--however, there are actually compelling reasons for women and men to join fields that they are minorities in. In this case, it is not that women merely choose not to go into technical fields out of pure disinterest. It is the social barriers and the lack of exposure women have had since childhood. This comic briefly explains: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883 Women have the possibility of increasing the total popularity of the field and decreasing the social stigma behind technological fields. They increase the total size and productivity of the industry. They increase the diversity of perspectives in the field. They appeal better to and understand female clients. They could make technological fields more presentable and appealing. This technological feminism helps women as well. There are increasing spaces for Computer Science-related jobs in the industry and there is not an equally strong work force rising to meet it. Making it more appealing and more acceptable for women to take these roles (there would have to be a disproportionate push towards women because of their given backgrounds) would give them a wider range of profitable options in life and would increase the accessibility of the technological culture to all women. I believe that the 'geek' culture surrounding the growth of technology is becoming a more important and significant part of mainstream culture, yet women are not participating in it as widely as men are. The implications for the culture and the women not participating it are not great. I realize the group here is not as receptive to technological feminism, being primarily male and anti-feminist, so I will stop here. Please feel free to message me if you are interested.
- neilk 16y ago
  I didn't really like that SMBC comic. Boys play with dolls too, we just call them action figures. There are an infinite amount of stories you can make out of Barbies or GI Joes or whatever. Furthermore, what about crayons? Paints? Again there are infinite possibilities and I don't think these toys are particularly gendered. However, it is true that "building" type toys are generally marketed to boys only, and that's got to be a factor. One interesting data point; lately they've been marketing a Barbie with a tiny camera (concealed as a pendant necklace) and LCD screen on the back. Apparently many boys think this is "creepy", but many girls instantly see the possibilities of making movies from Barbie's point of view. http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/lights-camera-barbie/ http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/lights-camera...
protomyth 16y ago
There are economic reasons why many daycares will not hire men (e.g. fear of lawsuits).

greenlblue 16y ago

It's not about differences or different people having different interests. Technology and technology companies are major drivers of societal change and it is important to have as many different groups involved in that process as possible. That is the larger philosophical issue here and I don't think anyone can disagree with that.

sz 16y ago
If you want a group to become more involved with a process, they need to be interested in it first.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Exactly. And this was Arrington's point.
- wanderr 16y ago
  So how do we get them interested?
  - zacharypinter 16y ago
    Television?
- greenlblue 16y ago
  Well women are obviously interested why else would we be having this discussion? It obviously comes up and the fact that it keeps coming up means there is underlying issue that is not being addressed. Nobody is saying it's an issue that is easy to address but both educators and women in tech keep bringing up the issue so the incumbents are not doing a good job addressing it. Plus, it is in everyone interests to have all kinds of people be technologically savvy whether they are male or female.
  - ahlatimer 16y ago
    Except that a lot of the time this discussion isn't started by a female interested in entering the tech industry. I've seen a few posts by women in the industry railing against some sexist thing some other member did [1]. I've also seen a few articles by men saying the tech industry needs to be more open to women. And I've also seen articles by women who are not in the tech industry saying that the tech industry needs to get more women, even though they themselves aren't really trying to get into the industry. So, we have really one set of women with some sort of interest in actually being in the tech industry, but they're mostly talking about someone doing something stupid, which can and does happen in every other industry. I don't think a limited number of misogynistic instances is really indicative of the state of the industry. If someone can point out a recent article written by a woman who tried to enter the tech industry but couldn't because we're a sexist bunch, I'd love to read it. So far, though, I just haven't come across that. [1]: The one that comes to mind is the talk given for some Rails function a year or so ago. I don't remember who gave the talk or what it was about. I just remember it caused a big stink.
    - lingrush 16y ago
      Talk to the potential female CS majors and ask them why they changed their minds.
  - sz 16y ago
    > Well women are obviously interested why else would we be having this discussion? This isn't obvious. If you want to argue this point you need to offer evidence. > It obviously comes up and the fact that it keeps coming up means there is underlying issue that is not being addressed. Your conclusion that there is a cause not yet addressed doesn't follow. The recurrence of an argument can just as easily be attributed to arguers who can't admit they're wrong or don't understand their opponents, especially in this case when the arguers aren't female tech startup founders. > Nobody is saying it's an issue that is easy to address but both educators and women in tech keep bringing up the issue so the incumbents are not doing a good job addressing it. You didn't specify what the "issue" is. As ahlatimer pointed out, this claim needs support. And again, your conclusion doesn't follow, for the same reasons. > Plus, it is in everyone interests to have all kinds of people be technologically savvy whether they are male or female. A trivial statement. Ideally everyone would be savvy at everything. It seems like you're trying to argue that women are capable of something in this space that men are not, but I'm not sure what that is. Look, it may be that you have valid points, but you're embarrassing yourself with the way you argue them. Read [1] if you don't understand why. You're a consistent DH3, which means you contradict without justifying, hence the downvotes. Anecdotal evidence, studies, careful reasoning (that doesn't use the word "obvious"), etc. would help everyone understand the merits of your point of view better than repetition. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
tbrownaw 16y ago
Technology and technology companies are major drivers of societal change and it is important to have as many different groups involved in that process as possible. That is the larger philosophical issue here and I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Yay for stakeholder representation and death-by-committee. Groups cannot be involved in doing things, only in preventing things. Individuals can do things, and it really doesn't matter what groups those individuals may be seen by others to be a part of. All that matters is whether they're willing to try something new and different, and whether everyone else feels like using whatever they build. No structure, no "process" for groups to get involved in and veto, just people doing interesting things and other people choosing whether to use those things.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

"and there's something about gender that just has this shaping force on our interests and talents." What would that "something" and that "force" be?

philwelch 16y ago

"too few women in Tactial Special Ops teams" There's intermittent controversy over having women in combat. Countries that have tried it, incidentally, find that it's a liability because men tend to go apeshit protective when female soldiers get hurt. "But I'll never see that because I think secretly deep down they know, gee, people are different, genders are different, and there's something about gender that just has this shaping force on our interests and talents." If so, it may be helpful if more women were involved in software, because if women are different from men that probably extends to how they use software, and it would be good if software was better for women.

lenni 16y ago
I'm interested in the apeshit protective bit. Have you got something to read on it?
jacquesm 16y ago
> find that it's a liability because men tend to go apeshit protective when female soldiers get hurt. Solution: all female battalions.
- epochwolf 16y ago
  Rush Limbaugh made this suggestion in one of his books. (Albeit with a 1 week on, 3 weeks off rotation)
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    So you're saying the idea is nothing but the deranged rantings of a sociopath? That's an ad hominem logical fallacy, and doesn't refute the actual value of the concept.
    - epochwolf 16y ago
      I do believe you are reading far too much into my comment. It was merely a stated fact.[1] Given the way Rush Limbaugh is viewed I thought would be mildly amusing to make a slightly off-topic reference. 1. You can search for "amazon" on this page: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/16/magazine/the-rush-hours.ht...

fauigerzigerk 16y ago

I wouldn't count too much on what people secretly "know" deep down but are unable to reason about. These things are usually stereotypes or religion, both of which have questionable qualities when it comes to analyzing causality.

cookiecaper 16y ago
You don't believe that gender bears any kind of fundamental impact on emotional and intellectual development? I think that the things mentioned in this thread are proof enough. There is no reason why there wouldn't be more women in tech except that women (generally speaking, of course) don't find tech that desirable, just as men don't find working in a daycare center very desirable. In the whirlwind of 20th century liberation movements, people seem to forget that there really _are_ fundamental differences between certain types of people. Not differences like "women are only good at cleaning and men only think about sex", but differences like "women are generally more often disposed to child-rearing and men are generally more often disposed to computer programming". I don't see what good there is in ignoring these differences. Yes, some people took it too far and decided women shouldn't vote and blacks and whites couldn't intermingle, but that doesn't mean we go to the other extreme and plug our ears and refuse to believe that any one type of person is predisposed to a behavior, belief, or emotional status.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  The issue I have with what you and mkramlich say is that you're jumping from an observation to a conclusion about causality. I'm just asking, what is the basis for your assumptions about causality? You say that people took it too far in the past. Why was that? I think that they didn't just take it too far, they made a categorical and methodical mistake. They did not question the basis on which to make such assumptions. In that sense, you're making the same mistake today. [Edit] And don't forget that we're talking about something - web startups and entrepreneurship - that takes an incredibly broad range of capabilities that have nothing to do with having babies. It's not like we're talking about interest and talent for breast feeding. And by the way, I totally agree with Arrington. He doesn't say anything about why we see what we see though.

lingrush 16y ago

I do complain about not enough male nurses, where the gender difference is noticeable and is affecting the direction of the field or perceptions of the field itself. Yes, there should be some room for "gender differences" which is not necessarily distinguishable anyway--however, there are actually compelling reasons for women and men to join fields that they are minorities in. In this case, it is not that women merely choose not to go into technical fields out of pure disinterest. It is the social barriers and the lack of exposure women have had since childhood. This comic briefly explains: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883 Women have the possibility of increasing the total popularity of the field and decreasing the social stigma behind technological fields. They increase the total size and productivity of the industry. They increase the diversity of perspectives in the field. They appeal better to and understand female clients. They could make technological fields more presentable and appealing. This technological feminism helps women as well. There are increasing spaces for Computer Science-related jobs in the industry and there is not an equally strong work force rising to meet it. Making it more appealing and more acceptable for women to take these roles (there would have to be a disproportionate push towards women because of their given backgrounds) would give them a wider range of profitable options in life and would increase the accessibility of the technological culture to all women. I believe that the 'geek' culture surrounding the growth of technology is becoming a more important and significant part of mainstream culture, yet women are not participating in it as widely as men are. The implications for the culture and the women not participating it are not great. I realize the group here is not as receptive to technological feminism, being primarily male and anti-feminist, so I will stop here. Please feel free to message me if you are interested.

neilk 16y ago
I didn't really like that SMBC comic. Boys play with dolls too, we just call them action figures. There are an infinite amount of stories you can make out of Barbies or GI Joes or whatever. Furthermore, what about crayons? Paints? Again there are infinite possibilities and I don't think these toys are particularly gendered. However, it is true that "building" type toys are generally marketed to boys only, and that's got to be a factor. One interesting data point; lately they've been marketing a Barbie with a tiny camera (concealed as a pendant necklace) and LCD screen on the back. Apparently many boys think this is "creepy", but many girls instantly see the possibilities of making movies from Barbie's point of view. http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/lights-camera-barbie/ http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/lights-camera...

protomyth 16y ago

There are economic reasons why many daycares will not hire men (e.g. fear of lawsuits).