4 ms·

At some point it boils down to who applies. Example: Women are GENERALLY more petite, they struggle carrying firefighter gear (45-75lbs depending on your load

At some point it boils down to who applies. Example: Women are GENERALLY more petite, they struggle carrying firefighter gear (45-75lbs depending on your load out) and aren't interested or can't pass the necessary requirements to ensure their safety, they get fewer female applicants and thus more men are firefighters type of thing. I imagine there are still fewer qualified female applicants than male. I imagine there are far fewer female applicants for entry-level construction jobs than male applicants too, doesn't mean a construction company is dropping the ball or being discriminatory by default.

atomical 8y ago
Petite? A majority of women are overweight in the USA.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 8y ago
  If you keep posting unsubstantive inflammatory comments we'll ban the account.
s-shellfish 8y ago
What does this have to do with software development? Are you actually suggesting women have some physical attribute that makes them less applicable for programming, mathematics, or computer science jobs? This reasoning is part of the problem. It's not rigorously inspected or accepted, because it's circular logic that can be self proving given one dominant party enforcing such a reasoning structure as 'the rules'.
- colordrops 8y ago
  I think it's an analogy. The point is that there are deep social and cultural factors at play that bias women against software, so the applicant pool is small, and it can't be fixed by some localized corporate initiative.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    The 'analogy' can be taken either way allowing people who benefit from the issue to continue avoiding confronting the problem head on, directly, clearly, logically, in a straight forward manner - where both sides of the argument can be cleanly inspected and analyzed.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      If a company is hiring at or above the rate of women coming out of college and applying to jobs, what exactly are they avoiding to confront?
      - s-shellfish 8y ago
        If a comment on the internet uses physical strength and stature as an analogy for why there are less women applying to programming jobs, what exactly are they trying to say? Please don't treat me like an idiot because ambiguity is convenient.
        colordrops 8y ago
        I agree it was a poor analogy, but I am giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt and assuming that some idea of inferiority (that you seem to be implying) is not the intent of their comment. Women and men have traditionally had very different roles and expectations in society, and significant physical differences as well, and to think that these differences don't have an effect on preferences and motivations, and that the situation is easily changeable, is naive.
        s-shellfish 8y ago
        We are here conversing on hacker news. We are not in some fashion show or construction working environment. There are women on hacker news, and there are women all over the tech sphere. And often times, comments like this make the difference between choosing to pretend to be male to blend in so we can simply continue conversing like the technical people we are. Likewise, comments like this piss some women off, because we work very hard to be factual, logical, precise, and technically adept - and to have all of that dumbed down a point that basically amounts to 'men have more muscle, brains must work the same' is quite frankly at the very least, an extremely weak, limited argument. At worst, it's patronizing, offensive, it enforces a particular perspective, it silences other perspectives, it enforces a particular set of expectations, and it's simply, unscientific, rude, and exceptionally passive in it's implications. There's the expectation that people will just fill in the gaps because that's how we think when we code large projects. But here, I must say no. I will not fill in these gaps for you. I work hard to be good at what I do and if it continues to be insisted that sex differences serve as a concrete foundation for technical, mathematical skill, that simply isn't true. My life is proof enough to me. It may not be proof to you, but that's what I get to live with, because of lazy thought patterns like this. The near constant need to prove myself to people who are privileged enough to not have to go to such extremes. Expectations and roles, yes, I've heard all these arguments before. How does stuff like that change? Surely, you must be aware that repeating the same points will only serve to reinforce such a perspective?
- _sfsa 8y ago
  Don't put words in their mouth..
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    They can argue back with me if they feel so strongly about it. I am tired of playing nice and assuming everyone has good intentions when this sexist passive BS crops up. This is not a good argument. 'Who applies' is a perspective offered very clearly from only one side of the application pool - and it's severely limited because the only people that get listened to about the problem are the ones that retain authority over the business dynamic. It is incomplete information. I don't know how to make this more clear or obvious, but if people who value reason and logic and hard facts so intimately want to shoot themselves in the foot, well, cest la vie
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >What does this have to do with software development? Everything. If people aren't applying to the jobs, they can't be hired. Then of course even if the minority/gender a company is lacking on applies for a job, if they aren't the most qualified candidate a company shouldn't be expected to hire them. >Are you actually suggesting women have some physical attribute that makes them less applicable for programming, mathematics, or computer science jobs? No, clean your display off, I said "Example: Women are GENERALLY more petite, they struggle carrying firefighter gear". It's an example, an analogy. Firefighters often have the exact same diversity issues, fact is more Caucasian men apply than other races and genders. In the case of a firefighter a man selected at random is more likely to be more physically cable to do the job than a woman, with firefighting strength comes first then firefighting theory. With computer sciences, you have a far larger pool of men to draw on than women. n 1984, 37 percent of computer science majors were women, but by 2014 that number had dropped to 18 percent (https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/study-computer-science-gender-gap-widens-despite-increase-in-jobs https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/st...). That means out of a pool of applicants, roughly 1 out of every 5 (with a degree in the field) will be female. Add to that the fact that white Americans make up the racial majority of the country and what happens? Your pool of applicants is far more likely to be male and white than female and any other race. Someone with a computer science degree in the U.S. is statistically likely to be a white male. That's not racism, that's not sexism, that's reality.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    Okay, I understand the 'reality' that you don't want to listen to the experience of a woman who has been programming since she was 9, with a background in computer engineering and an MSc in computer science from a top engineering college that was all male until the 1970s, and 12% female at the time of graduation, a TA and graduate researcher, as well as being singularly awarded 'most outstanding student in computer science' with a cumulative gpa of 3.98 and a years experience working on a PhD in information flow control, before choosing multiple different directions. As well as pretty much doing nothing with my life besides studying, programming and mathematically philosphizing with the best of them since then. That's fine! The world changes, I'm assuming you know that. That's reality too.
isthisnagee 8y ago
I don't think your example applies in the context of a tech company, so I'm going to comment ignoring it. If it boils down to who applies, then we need to make sure that we're reaching out to communities that are not well represented in our field. It's not about waiting for them to come to us.
- atomical 8y ago
  Why respond at all if you aren't addressing the comment?
  - isthisnagee 8y ago
    I’m addressing the part of the comment that holds merit to me, specifically the part about diversity problems and a lack of applicants from underrepresented groups. I don’t believe that people in tech aren’t represented because of some biological difference. That might not be what the commenter was implying, but that’s how I read it.
- blahblahblogger 8y ago
  I think his point may have been that "who applies" is the END of the funnel. If there are issues earlier in the pipeline then we can't just focus on the end of it at the "who's applying" stage. If we want more representation, are women more represented in comp sci programs? Are they going into related engineering fields? Do they go to meet up groups or construct new ones if they don't want to go to existing ones?
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  >I don't think your example applies in the context of a tech company, so I'm going to comment ignoring it. 18% of CS majors are women. 76.9% of the U.S. is white. Statistically someone in the work force with a CS degree is a white male. That absolutely applies in the context of a tech company, unless you want them to hire unqualified applicants and spend months or years training them before they return profit. The problem isn't with who a company is hiring, the problem is women aren't seeking out the training and non-Whites are a literal minority of the population. Until more women pursue degrees/training in the field, and everyone starts partnering off with someone of a different race to make melting-pot babies, then it's just going to be this way purely due to statistics.

atomical 8y ago

Petite? A majority of women are overweight in the USA.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sctb 8y ago
If you keep posting unsubstantive inflammatory comments we'll ban the account.

s-shellfish 8y ago

What does this have to do with software development? Are you actually suggesting women have some physical attribute that makes them less applicable for programming, mathematics, or computer science jobs? This reasoning is part of the problem. It's not rigorously inspected or accepted, because it's circular logic that can be self proving given one dominant party enforcing such a reasoning structure as 'the rules'.

colordrops 8y ago
I think it's an analogy. The point is that there are deep social and cultural factors at play that bias women against software, so the applicant pool is small, and it can't be fixed by some localized corporate initiative.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  The 'analogy' can be taken either way allowing people who benefit from the issue to continue avoiding confronting the problem head on, directly, clearly, logically, in a straight forward manner - where both sides of the argument can be cleanly inspected and analyzed.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    If a company is hiring at or above the rate of women coming out of college and applying to jobs, what exactly are they avoiding to confront?
    - s-shellfish 8y ago
      If a comment on the internet uses physical strength and stature as an analogy for why there are less women applying to programming jobs, what exactly are they trying to say? Please don't treat me like an idiot because ambiguity is convenient.
      - colordrops 8y ago
        I agree it was a poor analogy, but I am giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt and assuming that some idea of inferiority (that you seem to be implying) is not the intent of their comment. Women and men have traditionally had very different roles and expectations in society, and significant physical differences as well, and to think that these differences don't have an effect on preferences and motivations, and that the situation is easily changeable, is naive.
        s-shellfish 8y ago
        We are here conversing on hacker news. We are not in some fashion show or construction working environment. There are women on hacker news, and there are women all over the tech sphere. And often times, comments like this make the difference between choosing to pretend to be male to blend in so we can simply continue conversing like the technical people we are. Likewise, comments like this piss some women off, because we work very hard to be factual, logical, precise, and technically adept - and to have all of that dumbed down a point that basically amounts to 'men have more muscle, brains must work the same' is quite frankly at the very least, an extremely weak, limited argument. At worst, it's patronizing, offensive, it enforces a particular perspective, it silences other perspectives, it enforces a particular set of expectations, and it's simply, unscientific, rude, and exceptionally passive in it's implications. There's the expectation that people will just fill in the gaps because that's how we think when we code large projects. But here, I must say no. I will not fill in these gaps for you. I work hard to be good at what I do and if it continues to be insisted that sex differences serve as a concrete foundation for technical, mathematical skill, that simply isn't true. My life is proof enough to me. It may not be proof to you, but that's what I get to live with, because of lazy thought patterns like this. The near constant need to prove myself to people who are privileged enough to not have to go to such extremes. Expectations and roles, yes, I've heard all these arguments before. How does stuff like that change? Surely, you must be aware that repeating the same points will only serve to reinforce such a perspective?
_sfsa 8y ago
Don't put words in their mouth..
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  They can argue back with me if they feel so strongly about it. I am tired of playing nice and assuming everyone has good intentions when this sexist passive BS crops up. This is not a good argument. 'Who applies' is a perspective offered very clearly from only one side of the application pool - and it's severely limited because the only people that get listened to about the problem are the ones that retain authority over the business dynamic. It is incomplete information. I don't know how to make this more clear or obvious, but if people who value reason and logic and hard facts so intimately want to shoot themselves in the foot, well, cest la vie
ryanmercer 8y ago
>What does this have to do with software development? Everything. If people aren't applying to the jobs, they can't be hired. Then of course even if the minority/gender a company is lacking on applies for a job, if they aren't the most qualified candidate a company shouldn't be expected to hire them. >Are you actually suggesting women have some physical attribute that makes them less applicable for programming, mathematics, or computer science jobs? No, clean your display off, I said "Example: Women are GENERALLY more petite, they struggle carrying firefighter gear". It's an example, an analogy. Firefighters often have the exact same diversity issues, fact is more Caucasian men apply than other races and genders. In the case of a firefighter a man selected at random is more likely to be more physically cable to do the job than a woman, with firefighting strength comes first then firefighting theory. With computer sciences, you have a far larger pool of men to draw on than women. n 1984, 37 percent of computer science majors were women, but by 2014 that number had dropped to 18 percent (https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/study-computer-science-gender-gap-widens-despite-increase-in-jobs https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/st...). That means out of a pool of applicants, roughly 1 out of every 5 (with a degree in the field) will be female. Add to that the fact that white Americans make up the racial majority of the country and what happens? Your pool of applicants is far more likely to be male and white than female and any other race. Someone with a computer science degree in the U.S. is statistically likely to be a white male. That's not racism, that's not sexism, that's reality.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  Okay, I understand the 'reality' that you don't want to listen to the experience of a woman who has been programming since she was 9, with a background in computer engineering and an MSc in computer science from a top engineering college that was all male until the 1970s, and 12% female at the time of graduation, a TA and graduate researcher, as well as being singularly awarded 'most outstanding student in computer science' with a cumulative gpa of 3.98 and a years experience working on a PhD in information flow control, before choosing multiple different directions. As well as pretty much doing nothing with my life besides studying, programming and mathematically philosphizing with the best of them since then. That's fine! The world changes, I'm assuming you know that. That's reality too.

isthisnagee 8y ago

I don't think your example applies in the context of a tech company, so I'm going to comment ignoring it. If it boils down to who applies, then we need to make sure that we're reaching out to communities that are not well represented in our field. It's not about waiting for them to come to us.

atomical 8y ago
Why respond at all if you aren't addressing the comment?
- isthisnagee 8y ago
  I’m addressing the part of the comment that holds merit to me, specifically the part about diversity problems and a lack of applicants from underrepresented groups. I don’t believe that people in tech aren’t represented because of some biological difference. That might not be what the commenter was implying, but that’s how I read it.
blahblahblogger 8y ago
I think his point may have been that "who applies" is the END of the funnel. If there are issues earlier in the pipeline then we can't just focus on the end of it at the "who's applying" stage. If we want more representation, are women more represented in comp sci programs? Are they going into related engineering fields? Do they go to meet up groups or construct new ones if they don't want to go to existing ones?
ryanmercer 8y ago
>I don't think your example applies in the context of a tech company, so I'm going to comment ignoring it. 18% of CS majors are women. 76.9% of the U.S. is white. Statistically someone in the work force with a CS degree is a white male. That absolutely applies in the context of a tech company, unless you want them to hire unqualified applicants and spend months or years training them before they return profit. The problem isn't with who a company is hiring, the problem is women aren't seeking out the training and non-Whites are a literal minority of the population. Until more women pursue degrees/training in the field, and everyone starts partnering off with someone of a different race to make melting-pot babies, then it's just going to be this way purely due to statistics.