3 ms·

> 1. I have zero experience seeing women in STEM treated badly. I'm sure it exists, but I've never seen it. Exactly the contrary. So whenever I personally see t

by pm90 8y ago

> 1. I have zero experience seeing women in STEM treated badly. I'm sure it exists, but I've never seen it. Exactly the contrary. So whenever I personally see these articles, I think it's a solution looking for a problem. I don't get this kind of reasoning at all. It really doesn't matter if you personally have not experienced such kind of behavior, only that we have reasonable evidence to believe it does. And as journalists have shown over the past couple of years, abuse of vulnerable women/minorities is a lot more widespread than what it was earlier believed to be.

cheez 8y ago
Mistreatment/abuse of women != women in STEM being treated badly. As React Conference-gate showed, people get offended at everything. That can't be the barometer.
- pm90 8y ago
  > Mistreatment/abuse of women != women in STEM being treated badly. What? You realize all the recent guardrails that conferences have in place are there for a reason, right? They didn't materialize out of thin air. There have been many, many, many reports of various forms of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct which necessitated their creation. I am not familiar with the conference you mention and can thus not comment on it.
  - cheez 8y ago
    Someone made a joke that documentation is like sex, bad documentation is better than none at all. Not sure if my memory is correct. Apparently this triggered some people and the guy had to go on an apology tour.
BurningFrog 8y ago
Why would you believe journalists over STEM people about workplace conditions in STEM? Journalists will write whatever sells the most clicks. They're not some kind of scientists.
- pm90 8y ago
  > Why would you believe journalists over STEM people about workplace conditions in STEM? Because STEM people are doing mostly STEM stuff. They are not actively investigating workplace conditions. So they only have a limited view of the entire space of "STEM workplace conditions". Journalists _are_ actively investigating workplace conditions and their findings should be treated with more seriousness than your friends or some person on HN. > Journalists will write whatever sells the most clicks. I agree the incentives aren't exactly well lined up to always promote ethical behavior in journalism, but its not as flippant as you portray. It is a serious profession and most journalists treat it as such. > They're not some kind of scientists. Agreed. But like I mention earlier, I trust their findings more than of my personal experience or that of people I may have first-hand experience with.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Lets use what scientist writes and meta studies: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12062/gender-differences-at-critical-transitions-in-the-careers-of-science-engineering-and-mathematics-faculty https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12062/gender-differences-at-crit... A copy of a comment on this article on key findings from page 153, various highlights: - The findings on academic hiring suggest that many women fared well in the hiring process at Research I institutions, which contradicts some commonly held perceptions of research-intensive universities. If women applied for positions at RI institutions, they had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than had male job candidates. - The percentage of women who were interviewed for tenure-track or tenured positions was higher than the percentage of women who applied. - For all disciplines the percentage of tenure-track women who received the first job offer was greater than the percentage in the interview pool. - Female tenure-track and tenured faculty reported that they were more likely to have mentors than male faculty. - Women were more likely than men to receive tenure when they came up for tenure review.
    - mpweiher 8y ago
      For tech, the ACM did a survey. It is one of the few (maybe only) that asked both women and men and came up with a lot of surprising findings: "Our results suggest that men and women share some but not all motivations for entering IT. [..] men were significantly more likely than women to identify "love of technology/computers" as a key motivator. Women, on the other hand, more often indicated that "job security," "ease of entry," and "flexible work hours" were primary reasons for entering the profession. This pattern of results suggests that factors in the work itself are more important in the career decision making of male IT professionals, while factors around the job (such as flexible hours) are more important in the decision making of female IT professionals. " "Men and women in our survey both generally reported a similar level of experience with role models. [..] This surprising finding does not support previous assumptions that the lack of females in IT means a lack of role models for women, which was assumed to be a disadvantage for women." "Our findings uncovered only one significant gender difference across a variety of work-related experiences. [..] They differed in regard to their perceptions of supervisor support related to their careers. This finding indicates that women perceive greater support in meeting career goals, recognizing opportunities, and improving their job performance." https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-the-it-profession/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...
mpweiher 8y ago
> And as journalists have shown over the past couple of years Hmm...have you heard of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect My first experience with journalistic "accuracy" was when I was a kid, Der Spiegel did an article on my dad. They mentioned his children (so my sister and myself) but got everything wrong. It's not that it was hard to find this out, they could have asked him, they could have asked us, they could have asked our mother, whatever. If they didn't want to bother to find out, they could have left that "information" out of the article. Instead they just chose to make something up. Who cares? Once I started to have some knowledge of things in the world, I absolutely experienced the effect that every single time they wrote about something I had first hand knowledge of, they got it not just completely, but outright comically wrong. But don't take my word for it, here's a recent example that became public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius The guy just made up stories, and I mean that literally. They were good stories, things that felt good, things that had a narrative that felt good. They were, in fact, pretty good fiction, and as fiction they would have been fine. But they were presented as reporting. If you think is an isolated case, I have some Nevada oceanfront property I want to sell you. Or maybe a New York bridge? So I am wary and skeptical of "reporting" in general. I am especially wary and skeptical of "reporting" that matches a popular narrative. And I am extremely skeptical of "reporting" that completely contradicts my personal experience and that of most if not all the people around me. That obviously doesn't "prove" the reporting is wrong, but taking such reporting as primary or even sole evidence is at best naive. YMMV.
devtul 8y ago
> abuse of vulnerable women/minorities is a lot more widespread than what it was earlier believed to be This is the reason people respond with "I've never seen it", it is a natural reaction once something is presented as widespread.
blub 8y ago
I always hear how badly women are treated in SW engineering and yet in 15 years I've only seen sexist comments twice and on one occasion had a personal discussion with the guy and tried to explain it's not ok. I don't doubt it's happening, but at the same time I'm tired of the media and other activists beating the drum of female rights (and those of other gazillions of minorities) and rubbing my face in the fact that my gender is bad and my race is bad every damn time. I was reading a book about feminism in Germany and the whole movement jumped the shark and now they're trying to paint being male as something undesirable and actively pursue a strategy of positive discrimination for women. This is exactly what's happening in the US and many other countries with minority rights movements - they're lashing out at white men as the root of all evil, harming essentially random people. Activists latched on to a strategy of shaming and silencing so-called opponents which is already starting to badly back-fire (as it rightly should).

by pm90 8y ago

cheez 8y ago

Mistreatment/abuse of women != women in STEM being treated badly. As React Conference-gate showed, people get offended at everything. That can't be the barometer.

pm90 8y ago
> Mistreatment/abuse of women != women in STEM being treated badly. What? You realize all the recent guardrails that conferences have in place are there for a reason, right? They didn't materialize out of thin air. There have been many, many, many reports of various forms of sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct which necessitated their creation. I am not familiar with the conference you mention and can thus not comment on it.
- cheez 8y ago
  Someone made a joke that documentation is like sex, bad documentation is better than none at all. Not sure if my memory is correct. Apparently this triggered some people and the guy had to go on an apology tour.

BurningFrog 8y ago

Why would you believe journalists over STEM people about workplace conditions in STEM? Journalists will write whatever sells the most clicks. They're not some kind of scientists.

pm90 8y ago
> Why would you believe journalists over STEM people about workplace conditions in STEM? Because STEM people are doing mostly STEM stuff. They are not actively investigating workplace conditions. So they only have a limited view of the entire space of "STEM workplace conditions". Journalists _are_ actively investigating workplace conditions and their findings should be treated with more seriousness than your friends or some person on HN. > Journalists will write whatever sells the most clicks. I agree the incentives aren't exactly well lined up to always promote ethical behavior in journalism, but its not as flippant as you portray. It is a serious profession and most journalists treat it as such. > They're not some kind of scientists. Agreed. But like I mention earlier, I trust their findings more than of my personal experience or that of people I may have first-hand experience with.
- belorn 8y ago
  Lets use what scientist writes and meta studies: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12062/gender-differences-at-critical-transitions-in-the-careers-of-science-engineering-and-mathematics-faculty https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12062/gender-differences-at-crit... A copy of a comment on this article on key findings from page 153, various highlights: - The findings on academic hiring suggest that many women fared well in the hiring process at Research I institutions, which contradicts some commonly held perceptions of research-intensive universities. If women applied for positions at RI institutions, they had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than had male job candidates. - The percentage of women who were interviewed for tenure-track or tenured positions was higher than the percentage of women who applied. - For all disciplines the percentage of tenure-track women who received the first job offer was greater than the percentage in the interview pool. - Female tenure-track and tenured faculty reported that they were more likely to have mentors than male faculty. - Women were more likely than men to receive tenure when they came up for tenure review.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    For tech, the ACM did a survey. It is one of the few (maybe only) that asked both women and men and came up with a lot of surprising findings: "Our results suggest that men and women share some but not all motivations for entering IT. [..] men were significantly more likely than women to identify "love of technology/computers" as a key motivator. Women, on the other hand, more often indicated that "job security," "ease of entry," and "flexible work hours" were primary reasons for entering the profession. This pattern of results suggests that factors in the work itself are more important in the career decision making of male IT professionals, while factors around the job (such as flexible hours) are more important in the decision making of female IT professionals. " "Men and women in our survey both generally reported a similar level of experience with role models. [..] This surprising finding does not support previous assumptions that the lack of females in IT means a lack of role models for women, which was assumed to be a disadvantage for women." "Our findings uncovered only one significant gender difference across a variety of work-related experiences. [..] They differed in regard to their perceptions of supervisor support related to their careers. This finding indicates that women perceive greater support in meeting career goals, recognizing opportunities, and improving their job performance." https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-the-it-profession/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...

mpweiher 8y ago

> And as journalists have shown over the past couple of years Hmm...have you heard of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect My first experience with journalistic "accuracy" was when I was a kid, Der Spiegel did an article on my dad. They mentioned his children (so my sister and myself) but got everything wrong. It's not that it was hard to find this out, they could have asked him, they could have asked us, they could have asked our mother, whatever. If they didn't want to bother to find out, they could have left that "information" out of the article. Instead they just chose to make something up. Who cares? Once I started to have some knowledge of things in the world, I absolutely experienced the effect that every single time they wrote about something I had first hand knowledge of, they got it not just completely, but outright comically wrong. But don't take my word for it, here's a recent example that became public knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius The guy just made up stories, and I mean that literally. They were good stories, things that felt good, things that had a narrative that felt good. They were, in fact, pretty good fiction, and as fiction they would have been fine. But they were presented as reporting. If you think is an isolated case, I have some Nevada oceanfront property I want to sell you. Or maybe a New York bridge? So I am wary and skeptical of "reporting" in general. I am especially wary and skeptical of "reporting" that matches a popular narrative. And I am extremely skeptical of "reporting" that completely contradicts my personal experience and that of most if not all the people around me. That obviously doesn't "prove" the reporting is wrong, but taking such reporting as primary or even sole evidence is at best naive. YMMV.

devtul 8y ago

> abuse of vulnerable women/minorities is a lot more widespread than what it was earlier believed to be This is the reason people respond with "I've never seen it", it is a natural reaction once something is presented as widespread.

blub 8y ago

I always hear how badly women are treated in SW engineering and yet in 15 years I've only seen sexist comments twice and on one occasion had a personal discussion with the guy and tried to explain it's not ok. I don't doubt it's happening, but at the same time I'm tired of the media and other activists beating the drum of female rights (and those of other gazillions of minorities) and rubbing my face in the fact that my gender is bad and my race is bad every damn time. I was reading a book about feminism in Germany and the whole movement jumped the shark and now they're trying to paint being male as something undesirable and actively pursue a strategy of positive discrimination for women. This is exactly what's happening in the US and many other countries with minority rights movements - they're lashing out at white men as the root of all evil, harming essentially random people. Activists latched on to a strategy of shaming and silencing so-called opponents which is already starting to badly back-fire (as it rightly should).