4 ms·

> Representation matters For some. I wanted to be a Formula 1 pilot as a kid because I liked fast cars, not because pilots were men. I wanted to be an astron

> Representation matters For some. I wanted to be a Formula 1 pilot as a kid because I liked fast cars, not because pilots were men. I wanted to be an astronaut because I was obsessed with space and spacesuits, but I saw them in comics where the protagonists where animals and I clearly wasn't. You know, sometimes people like stuff because they like it, not because they saw a male or female name somewhere. Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper existence has not discouraged me from becoming a male programmer and the fact that when I was a kid everyone said that knitting and crocheting were a girls' thing hasn't stopped me from learning them, it was a fun thing to do with my aunt. > If some other little girl, even one, can find solace in one of these wikipedia articles, then it's worth it. I read this sentence a lot, but there is no reason why we should believe it could happen. If the fact that these people exist and are alive wasn't enough to make them known, what can a Wikipedia article about unknown people actually do? Unless a marketing department with a budget pushes them to a larger audience under the assumption that they are important because they are women, regardless of the importance of to actual body of work they produced, they're gonna stay unknown.

mlyle 4y ago
If you want to be an X and are female, and then you see that 95% of people who do X are male... it's pretty rational to wonder if there's some social or selection barrier coming up that's going to make it difficult or impossible for you to do X. And that's if you even get to explicitly thinking about it: the message is so strong that "Xers are male" that many people will never take the leap of imagination.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > . it's pretty rational to wonder if there's some social or selection barrier coming up That's a very modern take Where I am from 90% of the people were farmers or worked in construction I liked math and then I discovered computers, nobody in my circle knew about 'em, except one of my youngest uncles People used to refer to it as "wasting time in front of a screen" I have become a computer programmer nonetheless People must understand that bubbles are much older than social networks and they were real bubbles, like people that never moved farther than a 100 kms from where they were born. If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers. People evolve despite the odds. Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona. He became an explorer Science as a profession is still not mainstream, there still an high chance of failing at it, it's pretty obvious that it is more common among people who are less risk adverse: young men.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona. He became an explorer Outliers aren't too helpful in analyzing this. The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something? Yes, in general, they do. e.g. even if 99.9% of women get discouraged and avoids the profession as a result, every single one that doesn't is an exception one can point to. Individual outliers don't lend any basis for argument. > If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers. This isn't a very meaningful point. I'm not talking about things in disequilibrium. I'm saying, if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you: maybe there's something wrong with your shape to go to the NBA. If you're a girl and see everyone working in math is male, you may rationally wonder about whether there's a path for you to succeed working as a mathematician. (And you might also rationally wonder what life will be like if you're female in a 95% male industry).
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something? that's a good question and the answer is not definitively yes. For a number of reasons. First of all, there's the outlier and there are the pioneers. Columbus was a pioneer (among others), not just an outlier. Secondly, we don't have the data. From my anecdotal experience as a long time tech worker, women are hired in greater numbers compared to the number of applications. From my anecdotal experience and context (Europe, Italy) it's much harder to find them than men. But when companies find them, they have no bigger problems than men to get the job. I would say that if there are ten open positions and 20 men apply, 8 get the job, for the same job 3 women apply and 2 of them get the job. I've been interviewing for the company I work for and I've adviced them to hire all the women that applied, not so much for men, approximately 1 in 2 is coming to the interview either under prepared or to test how much more they could ask to their actual employer. > if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you There's a good chance that you are not fit for basketball. Listen, I understand your point, I was a volleyball player in my teen years, I was good, not great, but I was shorter than most of the other players. Turns out that's important to succeed as a professional player because other teams will get the tallest player they can find to win. You are actively encouraged to persist if you're taller than average and discouraged if you're not and I think it's completely normal (of course there are exceptions, but the Karch Kiraly(s) don't grow on trees) I did not succeed and that's ok. I wasn't crushed by that discovery, I just understood I wasn't playing in the same league of professionals. It's nobody's fault. In the same ballpark there's the fact that I probably succeeded as a programmer because I wasn't fit for volleyball and computers were much more satisfying. If I was born 2 meters tall, maybe I would have abandoned CS for volleyball, who knows. Maybe it's the same for other people too, they get more satisfaction from other jobs than science and choose them.

mlyle 4y ago

If you want to be an X and are female, and then you see that 95% of people who do X are male... it's pretty rational to wonder if there's some social or selection barrier coming up that's going to make it difficult or impossible for you to do X. And that's if you even get to explicitly thinking about it: the message is so strong that "Xers are male" that many people will never take the leap of imagination.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> . it's pretty rational to wonder if there's some social or selection barrier coming up That's a very modern take Where I am from 90% of the people were farmers or worked in construction I liked math and then I discovered computers, nobody in my circle knew about 'em, except one of my youngest uncles People used to refer to it as "wasting time in front of a screen" I have become a computer programmer nonetheless People must understand that bubbles are much older than social networks and they were real bubbles, like people that never moved farther than a 100 kms from where they were born. If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers. People evolve despite the odds. Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona. He became an explorer Science as a profession is still not mainstream, there still an high chance of failing at it, it's pretty obvious that it is more common among people who are less risk adverse: young men.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Columbus parents had a small shop that sold wine and cheese in a small city called Savona. He became an explorer Outliers aren't too helpful in analyzing this. The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something? Yes, in general, they do. e.g. even if 99.9% of women get discouraged and avoids the profession as a result, every single one that doesn't is an exception one can point to. Individual outliers don't lend any basis for argument. > If this "theory" was true, we would all still be hunter gatherers. This isn't a very meaningful point. I'm not talking about things in disequilibrium. I'm saying, if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you: maybe there's something wrong with your shape to go to the NBA. If you're a girl and see everyone working in math is male, you may rationally wonder about whether there's a path for you to succeed working as a mathematician. (And you might also rationally wonder what life will be like if you're female in a 95% male industry).
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > The question is: do people get discouraged from seeing few people like them doing something? that's a good question and the answer is not definitively yes. For a number of reasons. First of all, there's the outlier and there are the pioneers. Columbus was a pioneer (among others), not just an outlier. Secondly, we don't have the data. From my anecdotal experience as a long time tech worker, women are hired in greater numbers compared to the number of applications. From my anecdotal experience and context (Europe, Italy) it's much harder to find them than men. But when companies find them, they have no bigger problems than men to get the job. I would say that if there are ten open positions and 20 men apply, 8 get the job, for the same job 3 women apply and 2 of them get the job. I've been interviewing for the company I work for and I've adviced them to hire all the women that applied, not so much for men, approximately 1 in 2 is coming to the interview either under prepared or to test how much more they could ask to their actual employer. > if you're a kid looking at a whole bunch of basketball players that are very differently shaped than you There's a good chance that you are not fit for basketball. Listen, I understand your point, I was a volleyball player in my teen years, I was good, not great, but I was shorter than most of the other players. Turns out that's important to succeed as a professional player because other teams will get the tallest player they can find to win. You are actively encouraged to persist if you're taller than average and discouraged if you're not and I think it's completely normal (of course there are exceptions, but the Karch Kiraly(s) don't grow on trees) I did not succeed and that's ok. I wasn't crushed by that discovery, I just understood I wasn't playing in the same league of professionals. It's nobody's fault. In the same ballpark there's the fact that I probably succeeded as a programmer because I wasn't fit for volleyball and computers were much more satisfying. If I was born 2 meters tall, maybe I would have abandoned CS for volleyball, who knows. Maybe it's the same for other people too, they get more satisfaction from other jobs than science and choose them.