3 ms·

> You explain with discrimination (which was real in the 50s according to most evidence we have) what is in parent's case better explained as a difference in mo

by zzzeek 8y ago

> You explain with discrimination (which was real in the 50s according to most evidence we have) what is in parent's case better explained as a difference in motivation (making a five-figure salary by being responsible for humans is more attractive to the average US woman than being responsible for modules of code is). and your evidence for this is ....? > , and there is a multitude of reasons that are more plausible than purely discrimination. same? When computer programming was first invented, nearly all programmers were women. Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men. So this would indicate that discrimination, not interest level, is the sole reason we don't have a lot of female programmers today. evidence: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-first-women-in-tech-didnt-leavemen-pushed-them-out-1512907200 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-first-women-in-tech-didnt-l...

sqrt17 8y ago
> and your evidence for this is ....? If we look at other professions (business, law, medicine), we'd find more discrimination but also more women. So discrimination is unlikely as a sole cause. > Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men. I clearly recall the days when programming was thought as the domain of the pimple-faced nerds with the thick glasses, way before the brogrammers and other "cool" nerd types came along. Law and medicine are all more prestigious and by your reasoning would have pushed out women even more. So there's something you're missing, and actively missing it even when reality waves its hand to you. Just one google query gives something more nuanced, such as this: https://austinstartups.com/the-tech-gender-gap-a-2016-progress-report-on-women-coders-c704a2d6039c https://austinstartups.com/the-tech-gender-gap-a-2016-progre... which rightly points out that the percentage of women was rising in CS as much as in medical and law until around 1985. And if you look at the graphic here https://blogs.sas.com/content/sascp/2018/12/05/booming-enrollments-and-gender-diversity-in-computer-science/ https://blogs.sas.com/content/sascp/2018/12/05/booming-enrol... you notice that it's not women leaving the field, it's more men coming to CS while the number of women stays the same until they leave in troves at the following bust cycle. You keep using evidence from the 50s (i.e., 70 years back) as explanation of today's state of affairs, but the evidence points that the 50s don't tell us anything about why we don't have more women programmers. Instead, ask why women got pushed away by post-bubble insecurity and maybe (and this is interpretation) some stigma that we as CS people have that pushes out women.
gdix 8y ago
> When computer programming was first invented nearly all programmers were women. Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men. Or maybe they were placed in these positions by men and when they were free to select it as a career, they didn't. In the early days of computing, personal interest wasn't a driving factor in selecting it as a career because it was still so new. I really think your example demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.
kortilla 8y ago
The job never became prestigious. I love computer programming but saying “I’m a programmer” has been one of the best ways to lose interest of people who aren’t programmers. The most common response is just “oh, that must be nice because it pays well, right?” Compare that to the response people get when they introduce themselves as heart surgeons and you’ll see what prestige amongst the general population (at least in the US) looks like.

by zzzeek 8y ago

sqrt17 8y ago

> and your evidence for this is ....? If we look at other professions (business, law, medicine), we'd find more discrimination but also more women. So discrimination is unlikely as a sole cause. > Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men. I clearly recall the days when programming was thought as the domain of the pimple-faced nerds with the thick glasses, way before the brogrammers and other "cool" nerd types came along. Law and medicine are all more prestigious and by your reasoning would have pushed out women even more. So there's something you're missing, and actively missing it even when reality waves its hand to you. Just one google query gives something more nuanced, such as this: https://austinstartups.com/the-tech-gender-gap-a-2016-progress-report-on-women-coders-c704a2d6039c https://austinstartups.com/the-tech-gender-gap-a-2016-progre... which rightly points out that the percentage of women was rising in CS as much as in medical and law until around 1985. And if you look at the graphic here https://blogs.sas.com/content/sascp/2018/12/05/booming-enrollments-and-gender-diversity-in-computer-science/ https://blogs.sas.com/content/sascp/2018/12/05/booming-enrol... you notice that it's not women leaving the field, it's more men coming to CS while the number of women stays the same until they leave in troves at the following bust cycle. You keep using evidence from the 50s (i.e., 70 years back) as explanation of today's state of affairs, but the evidence points that the 50s don't tell us anything about why we don't have more women programmers. Instead, ask why women got pushed away by post-bubble insecurity and maybe (and this is interpretation) some stigma that we as CS people have that pushes out women.

gdix 8y ago

> When computer programming was first invented nearly all programmers were women. Only when the job became prestigious were they pushed out by men. Or maybe they were placed in these positions by men and when they were free to select it as a career, they didn't. In the early days of computing, personal interest wasn't a driving factor in selecting it as a career because it was still so new. I really think your example demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.

kortilla 8y ago

The job never became prestigious. I love computer programming but saying “I’m a programmer” has been one of the best ways to lose interest of people who aren’t programmers. The most common response is just “oh, that must be nice because it pays well, right?” Compare that to the response people get when they introduce themselves as heart surgeons and you’ll see what prestige amongst the general population (at least in the US) looks like.