5 ms·

If there was an untapped market of engineers you'd better believe every tech company would be taking advantage of it. That's exactly the same argument used to

If there was an untapped market of engineers you'd better believe every tech company would be taking advantage of it. That's exactly the same argument used to justify every regressive policy. If x was true then rational y action would happen. But that's the poo tof racism and sexism rational y action doesn't happen due to the -ism.

macinjosh 8y ago
Do you really think white men care so much about keeping down other groups of people that they would prioritize it over making more money and having more access to good workers? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
- beat 8y ago
  It doesn't need to be deliberate or conscious. It can be incidental. Or maybe women just aren't as smart as men.
  - sol_remmy 8y ago
    No body thinks that. You're way outside the overton window. Why is the health care field heavily biased in favor or female nurses and doctors? Are women smarter than men when it comes to biology/anatomy?
    - beat 8y ago
      You're right, nobody thinks men are smarter than women. And it isn't true. So, let's think about why we see gender roles in employment. Why are there so few women software engineers? One possible explanation is that women just aren't smart enough. If you don't believe that (and I don't), then you need another explanation. Maybe it's because of sexism. But if you don't want to believe it's sexism (as the OP implied), then what is it? They're not too dumb, and the hiring process isn't sexist, so why? And that's where hands come up empty. That leads to nonsense like the person on this thread who said women are "wired differently", which presumably makes them less suitable. Which is just a polite way of saying women are too dumb to program, without facing the reality that that's exactly it means.
      - hnbroseph 8y ago
        > And that's where hands come up empty. there seems to be a presupposition here that the the 'natural' proportion of women software engineers is 50%.
        beat 8y ago
        There's a presupposition that the natural distribution of intelligence is gender-neutral. Which suggests that the unequal distribution of software engineers by gender has a cause other than intelligence. So what is the cause, then? Is it biological, or social, or random chance? "Random" doesn't seem likely, especially given how many other professions are male-dominated, and the relative economic and social power of those roles, compared to female-dominated professions. "Biological", if it doesn't map directly to intelligence, needs another cause - something that can be measured. Do you have a suggestion for this? I don't. "Social" is the most likely reason, but how is "social" different from "discrimination"? How do you define a social cause for men dominating the industry that can't be readily interpreted as discriminating against women?
        axlprose 8y ago
        is there a reason why you're so intently focused on the metric of intelligence here, as if it's the end-all-be-all of psychological factors? I work in personality psychology research, so this whole IQ-centric line of reasoning is very dubious to me. There are many other influential phycological factors involved in people's lives that aren't (as far as we know) a direct result of nurture, and when taken together often make a more significant contribution to people's lives than their score in the single dimension of IQ. Learning disabilities and affective/mood disorders are a big example of this, and personality traits are just as impactful in how a person's life unfolds, regardless of intelligence.
        beat 8y ago
        It doesn't need to be IQ-based. I'm dubious about any sort of "genetic" argument for why some fields are dominated by men, and others by women. The shift in programming from primarily women to primarily men is evidence for that, imho - if the leanings are genetic, why a change over the course of one or two generations?
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      I don't believe there is a heavy bias in favor of female doctors, I believe it is a field still majority male, although becoming almost equal. Nurses were traditionally the only actual healthcare profession open to women so it makes sense they would be overrepresented there. Male nurses now actually can find they have an advantage in hiring because they often have an easier time with the lifting and physical labor being a nurse often requires. My point is the comparison between nursing and programming is not strong.
- GVIrish 8y ago
  The whole point being made is that prejudice/bigotry is not rational. Just look at the phenomenon of redlining. Black home buyers from certain areas were absolutely prevented from acquiring mortgages even though it would have been a source of profit for local banks. There are people out there who won't hire female candidates in technical fields due to the misguided belief that 'women aren't good at math/science'.
- Marazan 8y ago
  It doesn't have to be be deliberate. Unconscious bias is a thing.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

macinjosh 8y ago

Do you really think white men care so much about keeping down other groups of people that they would prioritize it over making more money and having more access to good workers? That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

beat 8y ago
It doesn't need to be deliberate or conscious. It can be incidental. Or maybe women just aren't as smart as men.
- sol_remmy 8y ago
  No body thinks that. You're way outside the overton window. Why is the health care field heavily biased in favor or female nurses and doctors? Are women smarter than men when it comes to biology/anatomy?
  - beat 8y ago
    You're right, nobody thinks men are smarter than women. And it isn't true. So, let's think about why we see gender roles in employment. Why are there so few women software engineers? One possible explanation is that women just aren't smart enough. If you don't believe that (and I don't), then you need another explanation. Maybe it's because of sexism. But if you don't want to believe it's sexism (as the OP implied), then what is it? They're not too dumb, and the hiring process isn't sexist, so why? And that's where hands come up empty. That leads to nonsense like the person on this thread who said women are "wired differently", which presumably makes them less suitable. Which is just a polite way of saying women are too dumb to program, without facing the reality that that's exactly it means.
    - hnbroseph 8y ago
      > And that's where hands come up empty. there seems to be a presupposition here that the the 'natural' proportion of women software engineers is 50%.
      - beat 8y ago
        There's a presupposition that the natural distribution of intelligence is gender-neutral. Which suggests that the unequal distribution of software engineers by gender has a cause other than intelligence. So what is the cause, then? Is it biological, or social, or random chance? "Random" doesn't seem likely, especially given how many other professions are male-dominated, and the relative economic and social power of those roles, compared to female-dominated professions. "Biological", if it doesn't map directly to intelligence, needs another cause - something that can be measured. Do you have a suggestion for this? I don't. "Social" is the most likely reason, but how is "social" different from "discrimination"? How do you define a social cause for men dominating the industry that can't be readily interpreted as discriminating against women?
        axlprose 8y ago
        is there a reason why you're so intently focused on the metric of intelligence here, as if it's the end-all-be-all of psychological factors? I work in personality psychology research, so this whole IQ-centric line of reasoning is very dubious to me. There are many other influential phycological factors involved in people's lives that aren't (as far as we know) a direct result of nurture, and when taken together often make a more significant contribution to people's lives than their score in the single dimension of IQ. Learning disabilities and affective/mood disorders are a big example of this, and personality traits are just as impactful in how a person's life unfolds, regardless of intelligence.
        beat 8y ago
        It doesn't need to be IQ-based. I'm dubious about any sort of "genetic" argument for why some fields are dominated by men, and others by women. The shift in programming from primarily women to primarily men is evidence for that, imho - if the leanings are genetic, why a change over the course of one or two generations?
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    I don't believe there is a heavy bias in favor of female doctors, I believe it is a field still majority male, although becoming almost equal. Nurses were traditionally the only actual healthcare profession open to women so it makes sense they would be overrepresented there. Male nurses now actually can find they have an advantage in hiring because they often have an easier time with the lifting and physical labor being a nurse often requires. My point is the comparison between nursing and programming is not strong.
GVIrish 8y ago
The whole point being made is that prejudice/bigotry is not rational. Just look at the phenomenon of redlining. Black home buyers from certain areas were absolutely prevented from acquiring mortgages even though it would have been a source of profit for local banks. There are people out there who won't hire female candidates in technical fields due to the misguided belief that 'women aren't good at math/science'.
Marazan 8y ago
It doesn't have to be be deliberate. Unconscious bias is a thing.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]