9 ms·

>personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved' I say the below not as an attempt to criticize you

by slg 7y ago

>personally I don't see underrepresentation of women in tech as a problem that can be or should be 'solved' I say the below not as an attempt to criticize you for this viewpoint, but as a way to try to explain why this viewpoint is often interpreted as sexist. The question is why do you believe this? The possible explanations for why women are underrepresented in tech basically comes down to either nature or nurture. Either there is something in the way we as a society and industry educate, hire, manage, and promote women or there is something fundamentally different about women that prevents them from participating in this industry at the same rate as men. The former is fixable and you say this isn't fixable so we can assume this isn't your viewpoint. That would seem to mean your explanation relies on the idea that there is something fundamentally different about women that leads to them not going into tech. Do you see how that could easily be interpreted as sexist? It doesn't take much of a leap for people to hear the non-sexist "woman don't do this" as the sexist "women can't do this". You need to be able to articulate why you belong in that first camp or else everyone will just write you off as being in the second.

core-questions 7y ago
There's something fundamentally different about women that enables them to give birth to children. Humanity has been discussing the differences in behaviour between these two groups for literally millennia. Are we really going to just decide by fiat that there is zero possibility of a difference in inclination or ability that lends itself to women simply not wanting to be in this field as much as men? You essentially have to practice some kind of biological denialism in order to believe this "problem" is entirely managerial in nature. Discussing biological differences between sexes should not be considered sexism.
- chii 7y ago
  what is more interesting to discuss is why the same fervour is not given to other jobs where an imbalance in gender exists (for example, registered nurses). There's also more male electricians than female ones. I feel that if females who would have made good engineers are turned away by discrimination or harassment, there's a good opportunity for a company to find hidden gems of an employee for lower cost than the equivalent male by making sure she is treated well. Then natural competition should balance out the cost difference over time.
  - dlp211 7y ago
    For the record, there is absolutely a push to get more male nurses and there are orgs that try to get men into nursing.
    - mixmastamyk 7y ago
      How big is that push compared to the push mentioned in this thread? I have no numbers but my first guess is that it is smaller.
      - UserIsUnused 7y ago
        negligible. It's actually very simple. Programmers are big money makers for companies, specially good programmers. Programmers are mostly male, that means there is almost 50% of the population that s not even considering that career. How much easier will it be to hire new programmers if the hiring pool would almost double? There is no such problem in other areas. Not other "mostly male" or "mostly female" career is as effective for generating money for employers or is so hard to get good employees.
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  Yeah, you're right. People just have to accept that back when we were living in caves, women did the child-rearing, and men did the computer programming, and by now it's hard-wired into our nature. If you doubt this, it must be because you don't believe that men and women differ biologically at all.
  - DangitBobby 7y ago
    Ah, the straw-person in its natural habitat.
  - core-questions 7y ago
    I mean, if you don't think there were gender roles during the caveman days that had critical impact on our evolution and the formation of civilization, then so be it. Tactical nihilism is super cool, just disbelieve everything and reject all premises! We'll arrive at a perfect mathematical sphere of truth eventually, right?
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Do you see how that could easily be interpreted as sexist? It doesn't take much of a leap for people to hear the non-sexist "woman don't do this" as the sexist "women can't do this". You need to be able to articulate why you belong in that first camp or else everyone will just write you off as being in the second. Here you've identified the actual problem, which is people hearing "don't do this" as "can't do this". I.e. people failing to apply their brains to a basic comprehension task. If we're to levy accusations of "-ism", then I'd call promoting this behavior as anti-intellectualism, or being pro-stupidity.
- chillfox 7y ago
  Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. I don’t know how many times I have seen the “don’t do this” argument being propped up by a due to “can’t do this” argument. If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. And it’s always by people who clearly have no idea about what they are talking about and can’t actually point to any biological differences that would cause it, other than child birth... So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. That would make them not only anti-intellectual/pro-stupidity, but also assuming and acting in bad faith to shut down the discussion. A honest person would point out that the conversation makes them uncomfortable, and that they don't want to continue it. > If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. Except all the times it doesn't. Quite often, the conversation ends up being about voluntary preferences (people will e.g. point out that the weaker the economic pressures and the higher the freedom of choosing your own career, the more gender-segregated the job market becomes). Also, even if the discussion ends up at genetics, it's only ever a problem if one or both parties make the error of reasoning and passing judgements about individuals from population-level statistics. > So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. It can be a valid and correct conclusion. If you starts by assuming something must be done, then there's no point in even having any discussion, because you've already made up your mind and seek justifications. It would be then best if you left the discussion to those who want to discover the truth about the issue. > Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating. How can people tell, if they always shut the argument down beforehand with some underhanded maneuver like reading "don't do" and accusing the person of saying "can't do"?
flukus 7y ago
> It doesn't take much of a leap for people to hear the non-sexist "woman don't do this" as the sexist "women can't do this" Have you considered that this assumed malice is creating a false sense of sexism in the industry and in turn driving women away from the industry?
rbavocadotree 7y ago
> nature or nurture This has been studied now, and the data points strongly towards nature. Country's with a higher level of gender equality have more gender disparity in fields such as STEM, not less. The country's that have done the most to alleviate the issues you've mentioned have the lowest percentage of women engineers. It was the exact opposite of what everyone thought would happen. These results were so unexpected that we called it the Gender-equality paradox.
DATACOMMANDER 7y ago
That women have less interest in or capacity for STEM work is the most parsimonious explanation.
blub 7y ago
"Either there is something in the way we as a society and industry educate, hire, manage, and promote women". I would add raise and socialize as kids to the list, but to me that's clearly part of it. The entire evolution of a person from baby to adult is moulded by society, which makes it pretty ridiculous when the enlightened techies want to solve the lack of women in tech by only "fixing" hiring and promoting. And management, if we're feeling generous.

by slg 7y ago

core-questions 7y ago

There's something fundamentally different about women that enables them to give birth to children. Humanity has been discussing the differences in behaviour between these two groups for literally millennia. Are we really going to just decide by fiat that there is zero possibility of a difference in inclination or ability that lends itself to women simply not wanting to be in this field as much as men? You essentially have to practice some kind of biological denialism in order to believe this "problem" is entirely managerial in nature. Discussing biological differences between sexes should not be considered sexism.

chii 7y ago
what is more interesting to discuss is why the same fervour is not given to other jobs where an imbalance in gender exists (for example, registered nurses). There's also more male electricians than female ones. I feel that if females who would have made good engineers are turned away by discrimination or harassment, there's a good opportunity for a company to find hidden gems of an employee for lower cost than the equivalent male by making sure she is treated well. Then natural competition should balance out the cost difference over time.
- dlp211 7y ago
  For the record, there is absolutely a push to get more male nurses and there are orgs that try to get men into nursing.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    How big is that push compared to the push mentioned in this thread? I have no numbers but my first guess is that it is smaller.
    - UserIsUnused 7y ago
      negligible. It's actually very simple. Programmers are big money makers for companies, specially good programmers. Programmers are mostly male, that means there is almost 50% of the population that s not even considering that career. How much easier will it be to hire new programmers if the hiring pool would almost double? There is no such problem in other areas. Not other "mostly male" or "mostly female" career is as effective for generating money for employers or is so hard to get good employees.
pgcj_poster 7y ago
Yeah, you're right. People just have to accept that back when we were living in caves, women did the child-rearing, and men did the computer programming, and by now it's hard-wired into our nature. If you doubt this, it must be because you don't believe that men and women differ biologically at all.
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  Ah, the straw-person in its natural habitat.
- core-questions 7y ago
  I mean, if you don't think there were gender roles during the caveman days that had critical impact on our evolution and the formation of civilization, then so be it. Tactical nihilism is super cool, just disbelieve everything and reject all premises! We'll arrive at a perfect mathematical sphere of truth eventually, right?

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Do you see how that could easily be interpreted as sexist? It doesn't take much of a leap for people to hear the non-sexist "woman don't do this" as the sexist "women can't do this". You need to be able to articulate why you belong in that first camp or else everyone will just write you off as being in the second. Here you've identified the actual problem, which is people hearing "don't do this" as "can't do this". I.e. people failing to apply their brains to a basic comprehension task. If we're to levy accusations of "-ism", then I'd call promoting this behavior as anti-intellectualism, or being pro-stupidity.

chillfox 7y ago
Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. I don’t know how many times I have seen the “don’t do this” argument being propped up by a due to “can’t do this” argument. If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. And it’s always by people who clearly have no idea about what they are talking about and can’t actually point to any biological differences that would cause it, other than child birth... So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Or they are just trying to get ahead of the argument and shut it down before it gets really uncomfortable. That would make them not only anti-intellectual/pro-stupidity, but also assuming and acting in bad faith to shut down the discussion. A honest person would point out that the conversation makes them uncomfortable, and that they don't want to continue it. > If you let these things run it’s course then it always ends up at the genetics/skull. Except all the times it doesn't. Quite often, the conversation ends up being about voluntary preferences (people will e.g. point out that the weaker the economic pressures and the higher the freedom of choosing your own career, the more gender-segregated the job market becomes). Also, even if the discussion ends up at genetics, it's only ever a problem if one or both parties make the error of reasoning and passing judgements about individuals from population-level statistics. > So it ends with “must be biological” because reasons, so “don’t do anything”. It can be a valid and correct conclusion. If you starts by assuming something must be done, then there's no point in even having any discussion, because you've already made up your mind and seek justifications. It would be then best if you left the discussion to those who want to discover the truth about the issue. > Seeing the same argument play out over and over, always ending at the same spot with no evidence is infuriating. How can people tell, if they always shut the argument down beforehand with some underhanded maneuver like reading "don't do" and accusing the person of saying "can't do"?

flukus 7y ago

> It doesn't take much of a leap for people to hear the non-sexist "woman don't do this" as the sexist "women can't do this" Have you considered that this assumed malice is creating a false sense of sexism in the industry and in turn driving women away from the industry?

rbavocadotree 7y ago

> nature or nurture This has been studied now, and the data points strongly towards nature. Country's with a higher level of gender equality have more gender disparity in fields such as STEM, not less. The country's that have done the most to alleviate the issues you've mentioned have the lowest percentage of women engineers. It was the exact opposite of what everyone thought would happen. These results were so unexpected that we called it the Gender-equality paradox.

DATACOMMANDER 7y ago

That women have less interest in or capacity for STEM work is the most parsimonious explanation.

blub 7y ago

"Either there is something in the way we as a society and industry educate, hire, manage, and promote women". I would add raise and socialize as kids to the list, but to me that's clearly part of it. The entire evolution of a person from baby to adult is moulded by society, which makes it pretty ridiculous when the enlightened techies want to solve the lack of women in tech by only "fixing" hiring and promoting. And management, if we're feeling generous.