3 ms·

It's not about differences or different people having different interests. Technology and technology companies are major drivers of societal change and it is im

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.

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.