4 ms·

> There's so much evidence to suggest that there is far more at play here than simply "engineering is laborious and dry [so women must not want to do the work]"

by _Tev 8y ago

> There's so much evidence to suggest that there is far more at play here than simply "engineering is laborious and dry [so women must not want to do the work]" that I'm willing to state it falls under wikipedia's citing rules for globally known knowledge: I don't need to cite that the capital of France is Paris any more than I need to cite this. What about citations proving that "software engineering when it was considered a low-class low-skill job" is the same profession as the programming in the past 30years. Or at least that it has the same difficulty / processes. Btw usage of phrases like "clear history", "so much evidence" (especially when you cite one(!) arguable data point), "already-refuted" does not convince anyone about you being right. It is at best annoying.

zaksoup 8y ago
What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring? I am under no obligation to engage a comment made in bad faith as if it wasn’t.
- _Tev 8y ago
  > What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring? From what I've seen this is standard assumption by ordinary people. And it does not target only programming, any office job that involves "sitting at the computer all day" gets that reputation. And that easily could have not been the case in the 50's (I really don't know). And the profession has clearly evolved (anecdotally: many think it has gotten worse). So your assumptions are really not that obvious. Sorry if that comes accross to you as "arguing in bad faith".
  - zaksoup 8y ago
    That's a fine assumption to be made by ordinary people but I think it's quite fair to respond to somebody commenting on hacker news as if they have more than a lay-person's understanding the technology industry. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? You're not engaging with my points in any meaningful way. Can we be done with this thread?
    - _Tev 8y ago
      Yeah, talk about arguing in bad faith, then move the goal posts (when lay people think the job is too hard / boring, they will not choose it when choosing education, seems pretty obvious?) and claim the other side is "arguing for the sake of arguing". You are not engaging in debate in any meaningful way, maybe stop arguing on HN? You are not convincing anyone . . .

by _Tev 8y ago

zaksoup 8y ago

What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring? I am under no obligation to engage a comment made in bad faith as if it wasn’t.

_Tev 8y ago
> What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring? From what I've seen this is standard assumption by ordinary people. And it does not target only programming, any office job that involves "sitting at the computer all day" gets that reputation. And that easily could have not been the case in the 50's (I really don't know). And the profession has clearly evolved (anecdotally: many think it has gotten worse). So your assumptions are really not that obvious. Sorry if that comes accross to you as "arguing in bad faith".
- zaksoup 8y ago
  That's a fine assumption to be made by ordinary people but I think it's quite fair to respond to somebody commenting on hacker news as if they have more than a lay-person's understanding the technology industry. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? You're not engaging with my points in any meaningful way. Can we be done with this thread?
  - _Tev 8y ago
    Yeah, talk about arguing in bad faith, then move the goal posts (when lay people think the job is too hard / boring, they will not choose it when choosing education, seems pretty obvious?) and claim the other side is "arguing for the sake of arguing". You are not engaging in debate in any meaningful way, maybe stop arguing on HN? You are not convincing anyone . . .