3 ms·

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 i

by 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".
    - foldr 7y ago
      Most people are not genuinely interested in their jobs, so I doubt that variation in genuine interest a major factor in gender balance. But sure, it is impossible to disprove your speculation conclusively. The trouble is that a lot of people seem to think that the mere abstract possibility of such speculations ought to shut down any serious attempt to eliminate sexism in tech.
      - fastball 7y ago
        First off, I don't understand how my stance is "speculation", but yours is not. Even assuming that your assertion about sexism in tech is not in fact speculation, how exactly is introducing more sexist policies into tech going to help eliminate sexism in tech?
        foldr 7y ago
        >First off, I don't understand how my stance is "speculation", but yours is not. Because my stance (that sexism is a significant factor in putting women off from tech) can be trivially verified by, say, asking 10 women in tech about their experiences of sexism. Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole. Out of interest, have you ever tried talking to women about this issue? Or have you (ironically) formed your opinion that there is no sexism in tech without listening to their perspective?
        fastball 7y ago
        10 women believing that there is sexism rampant in tech doesn't mean that there is, and it certainly doesn't prove out that it is a strain of sexism that is relevant in this particular case. I generally don't try to collect facts about life by asking randos for their opinions, no. But yes, I have talked with women in tech about sexism. I have also encouraged other women to get into tech in the first place. > Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole. Is this the same sexism that is causing the current generation of young women to go to and graduate university at a higher rate than their male counterparts, earn more money than their male counterparts, or commit less suicide than their male counterparts?

by foldr 7y ago

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".
  - foldr 7y ago
    Most people are not genuinely interested in their jobs, so I doubt that variation in genuine interest a major factor in gender balance. But sure, it is impossible to disprove your speculation conclusively. The trouble is that a lot of people seem to think that the mere abstract possibility of such speculations ought to shut down any serious attempt to eliminate sexism in tech.
    - fastball 7y ago
      First off, I don't understand how my stance is "speculation", but yours is not. Even assuming that your assertion about sexism in tech is not in fact speculation, how exactly is introducing more sexist policies into tech going to help eliminate sexism in tech?
      - foldr 7y ago
        >First off, I don't understand how my stance is "speculation", but yours is not. Because my stance (that sexism is a significant factor in putting women off from tech) can be trivially verified by, say, asking 10 women in tech about their experiences of sexism. Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole. Out of interest, have you ever tried talking to women about this issue? Or have you (ironically) formed your opinion that there is no sexism in tech without listening to their perspective?
        fastball 7y ago
        10 women believing that there is sexism rampant in tech doesn't mean that there is, and it certainly doesn't prove out that it is a strain of sexism that is relevant in this particular case. I generally don't try to collect facts about life by asking randos for their opinions, no. But yes, I have talked with women in tech about sexism. I have also encouraged other women to get into tech in the first place. > Not to mention that it would be a minor miracle if tech were somehow completely isolated from the sexism that's clearly present in society as a whole. Is this the same sexism that is causing the current generation of young women to go to and graduate university at a higher rate than their male counterparts, earn more money than their male counterparts, or commit less suicide than their male counterparts?