3 ms·

You're correct about my language choice, I could (and should) have used more neutral language to describe my position. While I do believe that there are some fu

You're correct about my language choice, I could (and should) have used more neutral language to describe my position. While I do believe that there are some fundamental differences in the interests and abilities of the genders (neither for better nor worse, they just are) I also agree that's its a slippery slope that has been abused in the past. Societal pressures and conditioning certainly play a role, however I think if you look at the lower-end of the job market the difference is clearer. Women tend to dominate retail work as well as waitress/hostess positions while men tend to dominate more labor intensive positions like construction, welding, modern day factory work etc. Is this due to some rampant discrimination in those fields or is it due to inherit biological/psychological differences in men and women? I'd be inclined to say the later. There are no pushes happening in the bottom end of the job market due lessen the gender disparity because those aren't as desirable positions so no one really cares that more men work in construction and more women are servers at restaurants. However when the position becomes more prestigious with higher pay it's suddenly a huge issue that a disparity exists - and obviously it's due to discrimination and has nothing to due with what each gender is naturally inclined to pursue or enjoy. You're right in that it's important not to automatically ascribe any demographic disparity to fundamental differences between the genders, but it's equally important to not automatically ascribe that difference to discrimination without considering those fundamental differences.

Uehreka 5y ago
I disagree about the “equally important” stuff, and here’s why: If I’m wrong and the overwhelming majority of women really don’t like programming, I’ll have wasted some of my time, but no one will have been materially harmed[0]. However, if I am right, then there are currently a large number of people who are being pushed away from a career or hobby that could increase their overall happiness and/or standard of living if they were not being pushed out of it, and I see that as a potential tragedy. Given how slanted these stakes are and how many times society as a whole has underestimated women as a whole, I think the right answer here is to err on the side of trying to get women and other underrepresented minorities interested into tech. [0] bear in mind what I said about the particular way I’m putting my belief into practice and that I do not believe in “reverse discrimination” to even the scales.
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  That's fair. I do believe that in an ideal world, everyone's barrier to entry into any profession would be equal removing all factors except merit. While that's obviously not possible, I do think it's worthwhile to work towards that. I also think that it can be worthwhile to make it known to women that tech and other career paths are viable and not out of reach for them - as I'm sure some women just have never considered it just as I have never seriously considered becoming a nurse. However, I think that's where it should stop. Make it known that it's an option, make it so that if they choose to pursue it that it's no more difficult for them than it would be if they were a man, and then let it be. Anything more and it becomes the individual(s) behind the movement projecting their desires onto others and is no different that the societal molding that's taken place for the past several decades.
- curtainsforus 5y ago
  If you're wrong, surely you'll have materially harmed some people by encouraging them to do something they don't like?
- evouga 5y ago
  The unstated major premise here is that software engineering work is valuable/fulfilling/high-status, while other work is not---so that pushing someone naturally suited to software engineering away causes harm, while pushing people more naturally suited to a different field into software engineering causes less harm. I don't think your premise is wrong, but I think it does explain why computer science is particularly focused on broadening participation, compared to other disciplines like nursing, teaching, etc. Computer science is current (for better or ill) a golden ticket to economic mobility.
- JuliusBranson 5y ago
  I'm only interested in why you believe what you believe. How smart are you? What do you value most? How truth-oriented is your epistemology? I'm glad you don't discriminate (nothing "reverse" about it) against men, but many do, and since [your views are wrong](https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Female-Brains-Autism/dp/046500556X https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Female-Brains-Au...) it's tantamount to sex-based theft and redistribution.

Uehreka 5y ago

I disagree about the “equally important” stuff, and here’s why: If I’m wrong and the overwhelming majority of women really don’t like programming, I’ll have wasted some of my time, but no one will have been materially harmed[0]. However, if I am right, then there are currently a large number of people who are being pushed away from a career or hobby that could increase their overall happiness and/or standard of living if they were not being pushed out of it, and I see that as a potential tragedy. Given how slanted these stakes are and how many times society as a whole has underestimated women as a whole, I think the right answer here is to err on the side of trying to get women and other underrepresented minorities interested into tech. [0] bear in mind what I said about the particular way I’m putting my belief into practice and that I do not believe in “reverse discrimination” to even the scales.

MathCodeLove 5y ago
That's fair. I do believe that in an ideal world, everyone's barrier to entry into any profession would be equal removing all factors except merit. While that's obviously not possible, I do think it's worthwhile to work towards that. I also think that it can be worthwhile to make it known to women that tech and other career paths are viable and not out of reach for them - as I'm sure some women just have never considered it just as I have never seriously considered becoming a nurse. However, I think that's where it should stop. Make it known that it's an option, make it so that if they choose to pursue it that it's no more difficult for them than it would be if they were a man, and then let it be. Anything more and it becomes the individual(s) behind the movement projecting their desires onto others and is no different that the societal molding that's taken place for the past several decades.
curtainsforus 5y ago
If you're wrong, surely you'll have materially harmed some people by encouraging them to do something they don't like?
evouga 5y ago
The unstated major premise here is that software engineering work is valuable/fulfilling/high-status, while other work is not---so that pushing someone naturally suited to software engineering away causes harm, while pushing people more naturally suited to a different field into software engineering causes less harm. I don't think your premise is wrong, but I think it does explain why computer science is particularly focused on broadening participation, compared to other disciplines like nursing, teaching, etc. Computer science is current (for better or ill) a golden ticket to economic mobility.
JuliusBranson 5y ago
I'm only interested in why you believe what you believe. How smart are you? What do you value most? How truth-oriented is your epistemology? I'm glad you don't discriminate (nothing "reverse" about it) against men, but many do, and since [your views are wrong](https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Female-Brains-Autism/dp/046500556X https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Difference-Female-Brains-Au...) it's tantamount to sex-based theft and redistribution.