3 ms·

> It's an innate part of being human. That's the point I am making. My point is not that everyone should be in tech, my point is that there is a disparity and

by ehnto 4y ago

> It's an innate part of being human. That's the point I am making. My point is not that everyone should be in tech, my point is that there is a disparity and if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be. > Now the genders skew slightly differently, for men it's more like 97% prefer to do something else, and with women it's 99% who prefer to do something else. So what? Let people do what they want to do. That is exactly what I want, for people do to what they want, but one group is systemically discouraged from taking on tech even if they want to. I am frankly disappointed that this has to be spelled out, that is surprising for this forum.

mpweiher 4y ago
> if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be Incorrect assumption. Everyone is obviously not equal. For example: 2% of people like tech enough to work there, 98% do not. These two groups are obviously not equal. > but one group is systemically discouraged from taking on tech even if they want to What evidence do you have for this "systematic discouragement"? Of the 98% of people who do not go into tech? How so?
- ehnto 4y ago
  >> if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be > Incorrect assumption. Everyone is obviously not equal. I was quoting you. There are some practical differences obviously, but I don't believe any of them should mean women are less inclined to enjoy technical jobs. > What evidence do you have for this "systematic discouragement"? Of the 98% of people who do not go into tech? How so? Speak to women who are in tech, ask them what their experience was like. I haven't got any studies for you I'm afraid, it would seem we're debating in experiences so I don't think this will be constructive.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    > I was quoting you. No you were not. I did not write "everyone is equal" anywhere in the post you responded to. In fact, I neither wrote 'everyone' nor 'equal'. > Speak to women who are in tech, ask them what their experience was like. Anecdote ≠ data and is not evidence for anything "systematic". > I haven't got any studies for you I'm afraid Because there aren't any that show this, because it's not an actual thing. > we're debating in experiences I am debating facts, you are debating what appear to be anecdotal experiences and subjective evaluations of those experiences from which you then extrapolate mightily. If I told you what my experience has been in tech, you probably wouldn't believe me. And if I were to present my personal experience as that of a woman, you would think it proof for the systematic discrimination against women in tech. Except that it isn't, of course, because it all happened to a man. Anyway, people have studied this empirically, and this is what they found: "Our early analysis suggests that men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving." https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ And of course this is why "just ask <group x>" is not a valid method for ascertaining discriminatory practice. You also have to ask other groups to see if the practices differ based on what group you belong to. In tech, they don't. In fact, women in tech generally report slightly better treatment than men do (different survey). Tech is a shit show for everyone. A very well-compensated shit-show, mind you. (And since men are und greater pressure to earn, they are probably also more likely to tolerate a shit show if the pay is good).
realjhol 4y ago
> my point is that there is a disparity and if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be. Yes but why do you assume that? What if your assumption is wrong, as the above study shows? Then the disparity would be explained simply by the natural proclivities of different groups of people. > one group is systemically discouraged from taking on tech even if they want to Again this in another article of faith. Notice how feminists always use the passive voice: women are "discouraged", not "these specific people are conspiring to discourage women for this specific reason". It's a motte-and-bailey trick to prevent anyone being able to call out their nonsense claims. Why does anyone want to discourage women from going into tech? My own daughter shows some interest in these things. Perhaps she will enter the field - or perhaps she'd prefer something else. I don't mind. She should do whatever would make her happy. It just turns out that women on average are slightly more likely to choose something else than man are.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  > Notice how feminists always use the passive voice Yeah, that one took me a while to figure out, but once you notice it you see how pervasive this trick is. For me, it was the thing about women doing more housework in relationships. Or rather "women are required to do more housework". But it wasn't actually their partners requiring this. Men generally don't give a crap, and this doesn't really change whether they are in a relationship or not. "But women are held to a higher standard". Ah, the passive to the rescue! But by who? Again, men don't give a crap. Well, it turns out that it is women holding each other to higher standards, more or less exclusively. But "women are oppressing each other" just doesn't have the same ring to it... > "these specific people are conspiring to discourage women for this specific reason". Turns out there actually are people making that claim. Can't find the actual text right now (it was a PhD thesis turned into a book, IIRC), and it claimed that the move to make CS more like engineering was a cabal of men in CS trying to kick the women out. The mind boggles. > Why does anyone want to discourage women from going into tech? Exactly. No one, that's who. And in fact, if you look around, you see tons and tons of encouragement, special events, special courses, special bootcamps etc. A recruiter here in Europe recently told me she has to get approval from US headquarters if she wants to suggest a straight white male for a role (although that was senior executive recruiting, not tech).

by ehnto 4y ago

mpweiher 4y ago

> if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be Incorrect assumption. Everyone is obviously not equal. For example: 2% of people like tech enough to work there, 98% do not. These two groups are obviously not equal. > but one group is systemically discouraged from taking on tech even if they want to What evidence do you have for this "systematic discouragement"? Of the 98% of people who do not go into tech? How so?

ehnto 4y ago
>> if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be > Incorrect assumption. Everyone is obviously not equal. I was quoting you. There are some practical differences obviously, but I don't believe any of them should mean women are less inclined to enjoy technical jobs. > What evidence do you have for this "systematic discouragement"? Of the 98% of people who do not go into tech? How so? Speak to women who are in tech, ask them what their experience was like. I haven't got any studies for you I'm afraid, it would seem we're debating in experiences so I don't think this will be constructive.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  > I was quoting you. No you were not. I did not write "everyone is equal" anywhere in the post you responded to. In fact, I neither wrote 'everyone' nor 'equal'. > Speak to women who are in tech, ask them what their experience was like. Anecdote ≠ data and is not evidence for anything "systematic". > I haven't got any studies for you I'm afraid Because there aren't any that show this, because it's not an actual thing. > we're debating in experiences I am debating facts, you are debating what appear to be anecdotal experiences and subjective evaluations of those experiences from which you then extrapolate mightily. If I told you what my experience has been in tech, you probably wouldn't believe me. And if I were to present my personal experience as that of a woman, you would think it proof for the systematic discrimination against women in tech. Except that it isn't, of course, because it all happened to a man. Anyway, people have studied this empirically, and this is what they found: "Our early analysis suggests that men and women actually appear to leave engineering at roughly the same rate and endorse the same reasons for leaving." https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ https://sites.uwm.edu/nsfpower/gears/ And of course this is why "just ask <group x>" is not a valid method for ascertaining discriminatory practice. You also have to ask other groups to see if the practices differ based on what group you belong to. In tech, they don't. In fact, women in tech generally report slightly better treatment than men do (different survey). Tech is a shit show for everyone. A very well-compensated shit-show, mind you. (And since men are und greater pressure to earn, they are probably also more likely to tolerate a shit show if the pay is good).

realjhol 4y ago

> my point is that there is a disparity and if we assume everyone is equal then there shouldn't be. Yes but why do you assume that? What if your assumption is wrong, as the above study shows? Then the disparity would be explained simply by the natural proclivities of different groups of people. > one group is systemically discouraged from taking on tech even if they want to Again this in another article of faith. Notice how feminists always use the passive voice: women are "discouraged", not "these specific people are conspiring to discourage women for this specific reason". It's a motte-and-bailey trick to prevent anyone being able to call out their nonsense claims. Why does anyone want to discourage women from going into tech? My own daughter shows some interest in these things. Perhaps she will enter the field - or perhaps she'd prefer something else. I don't mind. She should do whatever would make her happy. It just turns out that women on average are slightly more likely to choose something else than man are.

mpweiher 4y ago
> Notice how feminists always use the passive voice Yeah, that one took me a while to figure out, but once you notice it you see how pervasive this trick is. For me, it was the thing about women doing more housework in relationships. Or rather "women are required to do more housework". But it wasn't actually their partners requiring this. Men generally don't give a crap, and this doesn't really change whether they are in a relationship or not. "But women are held to a higher standard". Ah, the passive to the rescue! But by who? Again, men don't give a crap. Well, it turns out that it is women holding each other to higher standards, more or less exclusively. But "women are oppressing each other" just doesn't have the same ring to it... > "these specific people are conspiring to discourage women for this specific reason". Turns out there actually are people making that claim. Can't find the actual text right now (it was a PhD thesis turned into a book, IIRC), and it claimed that the move to make CS more like engineering was a cabal of men in CS trying to kick the women out. The mind boggles. > Why does anyone want to discourage women from going into tech? Exactly. No one, that's who. And in fact, if you look around, you see tons and tons of encouragement, special events, special courses, special bootcamps etc. A recruiter here in Europe recently told me she has to get approval from US headquarters if she wants to suggest a straight white male for a role (although that was senior executive recruiting, not tech).