3 ms·

You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been

by foldr 7y ago

You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.) Not sure what you mean by 3. Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it began to be seen as a high-status high-skill profession. Yes to 5, with the preceding caveats.

fastball 7y ago
If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? These arguments seem to go in circles a lot. First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in general that is sexist, but actually it's only certain professions where this "general sexism" manifests itself, for no apparent reason. Ok. Then you have the most egalitarian countries in the world seeing more disparate outcomes than other western countries. But this is apparently because sexism and cultural norms are so nebulous and hard to pin down that there must still be some sexism going on there too, we just can't see it. Ok. There are a lot of claims being made with no evidence whatsoever. While I personally don't put much stock in psychology, at least Damore's points had actual studies behind them. And though it has been thrown around in this thread that "some of the authors disagreed with Damore's interpretation!", I have actually read the studies and found nothing factually inaccurate with the interpretation. That's what is so difficult about a lot of psychology – the hard facts are few and far between, so effectively every result is subject to interpretation. An author of a paper can disagree, but that doesn't make Damore wrong.
- foldr 7y ago
  >If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawyer or a doctor. Fifty years ago, that wasn't the case. So there's no paradox here. "General sexism" includes stereotypes about appropriate occupations for men and women. These can change over time, as we've seen in the case of lawyers and doctors. >First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. It matters because it shows that women were, at one time, both interested in and capable of programming. No-one has said that it doesn't matter, so your 'but' makes no sense. You're quite right that there's nothing to be learned by throwing around citations to half-read and half-understood studies (which is why I haven't done any of that). All you have to do is listen to what women in tech say. If James Danmore had done that for five minutes instead of wasting his time on his half-assed "research", none of this would have happened.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Women did a lot of the manufacturing during the last World War. Does that mean women are interested in being factory workers? As to capacity, nobody, including Damore, claimed that women do not have the same capacity as men to be programmers. Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I'm not sure why you think there's any analogy between women working as programmers in the 60s and women working in factories during the second World War. But in fact, WWII did effect a huge change in perceptions of women as part of the workforce.
      - fastball 7y ago
        You literally claimed that women working in an industry means women are interested in working in that industry. That's not necessarily true. Hence the analogy.
        foldr 7y ago
        It does mean that in the absence of any other obvious explanation. I don't actually know the extent to which women working in factories were conscripted in WWII. But I do know that women weren't forced to work as programmers in the 1960s.
        fastball 7y ago
        The issue here is that doing something without being forced to do that thing does not then mean you are interested in that thing. If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing. If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same. I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true. Money is only one of many motivators, but it is often strong enough on its own to overcome your interest (or lack thereof) in something if it means you get paid for it. Take another example: many women throughout history have chosen sex work. That does not mean that sex work interests them. It just means they decided sex work was better than alternatives, for whatever reasons. Doing something of your own free will does not mean you have a genuine interest in that thing. It can (and often does) just mean that thing is better than alternatives, for a multitude of reasons that are not "I find it the most interesting".

by foldr 7y ago

fastball 7y ago

If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? These arguments seem to go in circles a lot. First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in general that is sexist, but actually it's only certain professions where this "general sexism" manifests itself, for no apparent reason. Ok. Then you have the most egalitarian countries in the world seeing more disparate outcomes than other western countries. But this is apparently because sexism and cultural norms are so nebulous and hard to pin down that there must still be some sexism going on there too, we just can't see it. Ok. There are a lot of claims being made with no evidence whatsoever. While I personally don't put much stock in psychology, at least Damore's points had actual studies behind them. And though it has been thrown around in this thread that "some of the authors disagreed with Damore's interpretation!", I have actually read the studies and found nothing factually inaccurate with the interpretation. That's what is so difficult about a lot of psychology – the hard facts are few and far between, so effectively every result is subject to interpretation. An author of a paper can disagree, but that doesn't make Damore wrong.

foldr 7y ago
>If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawyer or a doctor. Fifty years ago, that wasn't the case. So there's no paradox here. "General sexism" includes stereotypes about appropriate occupations for men and women. These can change over time, as we've seen in the case of lawyers and doctors. >First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. It matters because it shows that women were, at one time, both interested in and capable of programming. No-one has said that it doesn't matter, so your 'but' makes no sense. You're quite right that there's nothing to be learned by throwing around citations to half-read and half-understood studies (which is why I haven't done any of that). All you have to do is listen to what women in tech say. If James Danmore had done that for five minutes instead of wasting his time on his half-assed "research", none of this would have happened.
- fastball 7y ago
  Women did a lot of the manufacturing during the last World War. Does that mean women are interested in being factory workers? As to capacity, nobody, including Damore, claimed that women do not have the same capacity as men to be programmers. Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you think there's any analogy between women working as programmers in the 60s and women working in factories during the second World War. But in fact, WWII did effect a huge change in perceptions of women as part of the workforce.
    - fastball 7y ago
      You literally claimed that women working in an industry means women are interested in working in that industry. That's not necessarily true. Hence the analogy.
      - foldr 7y ago
        It does mean that in the absence of any other obvious explanation. I don't actually know the extent to which women working in factories were conscripted in WWII. But I do know that women weren't forced to work as programmers in the 1960s.
        fastball 7y ago
        The issue here is that doing something without being forced to do that thing does not then mean you are interested in that thing. If you have many good / attractive options and you choose one, you probably have an interest in that thing. If you have precious few, not great options, and you choose one, it does not necessarily indicate the same. I shouldn't need to provide copious examples for this to be obviously true. Money is only one of many motivators, but it is often strong enough on its own to overcome your interest (or lack thereof) in something if it means you get paid for it. Take another example: many women throughout history have chosen sex work. That does not mean that sex work interests them. It just means they decided sex work was better than alternatives, for whatever reasons. Doing something of your own free will does not mean you have a genuine interest in that thing. It can (and often does) just mean that thing is better than alternatives, for a multitude of reasons that are not "I find it the most interesting".