5 ms·

Your examples are things that can be measured. Also, if you don't need evidence, then I can say anything.

ceol 15y ago
I have plenty of evidence in the form of experience by women. I don't have a "discrimination-measuring machine", though. You'd be hard-pressed to find one of those. I know this isn't what a lot of HNers like to hear, but discrimination exists whether you can measure it with a ruler or not. This is one of those things where you have to piece together anecdotal evidence with an empirical lack of women to get the answer.
- lrhot9 15y ago
  Is discrimination the only possible explanation for the empirical lack of women? If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism. You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.
  - ceol 15y ago
    Of course it's not the only possible explanation; however, it's the most realistic explanation given the number of women who have expressed disgust at the level of discrimination present in the tech industry. Your analogy doesn't make sense to me because, again, I'm not familiar with higher mathematics. I can't say, "Yes, higher mathematics relates to the tech industry like racism against Norwegians relates to racism against black people."
    - lrhot9 15y ago
      So there can only be one explanation?
      - ceol 15y ago
        There's a main explanation. Do you have another that might suffice?
        lrhot9 15y ago
        Alright, if discrimination is the main explanation, what's the second most important explanation? The third? Why are you sure they're less important than discrimination?
        ceol 15y ago
        I'm not the one saying there's another realistic explanation. You should direct those questions at someone who is.
        lrhot9 15y ago
        Which one of the non-realistic explanations is the closest to being a realistic explanation, and in what way does it fall short?
        ceol 15y ago
        A non-realistic explanation would be that women are evolutionarily built to hate programming/technology so these fields naturally do not appeal to them. This also encompasses the "men are better at tech" thing. Another non-realistic explanation would be that women collectively do not want to go into tech despite being equally good at it as men. As in, there isn't any discrimination, and they would be just as suited as men, but most women just go, "Meh. Don't care." for some reason. I've heard both of these things and neither of them make any sense.
        lrhot9 15y ago
        And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: The modern godless creationist in full crusader gear. Thank you, it's been a pleasure.

ceol 15y ago

I have plenty of evidence in the form of experience by women. I don't have a "discrimination-measuring machine", though. You'd be hard-pressed to find one of those. I know this isn't what a lot of HNers like to hear, but discrimination exists whether you can measure it with a ruler or not. This is one of those things where you have to piece together anecdotal evidence with an empirical lack of women to get the answer.

lrhot9 15y ago
Is discrimination the only possible explanation for the empirical lack of women? If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism. You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.
- ceol 15y ago
  Of course it's not the only possible explanation; however, it's the most realistic explanation given the number of women who have expressed disgust at the level of discrimination present in the tech industry. Your analogy doesn't make sense to me because, again, I'm not familiar with higher mathematics. I can't say, "Yes, higher mathematics relates to the tech industry like racism against Norwegians relates to racism against black people."
  - lrhot9 15y ago
    So there can only be one explanation?
    - ceol 15y ago
      There's a main explanation. Do you have another that might suffice?
      - lrhot9 15y ago
        Alright, if discrimination is the main explanation, what's the second most important explanation? The third? Why are you sure they're less important than discrimination?
        ceol 15y ago
        I'm not the one saying there's another realistic explanation. You should direct those questions at someone who is.
        lrhot9 15y ago
        Which one of the non-realistic explanations is the closest to being a realistic explanation, and in what way does it fall short?
        ceol 15y ago
        A non-realistic explanation would be that women are evolutionarily built to hate programming/technology so these fields naturally do not appeal to them. This also encompasses the "men are better at tech" thing. Another non-realistic explanation would be that women collectively do not want to go into tech despite being equally good at it as men. As in, there isn't any discrimination, and they would be just as suited as men, but most women just go, "Meh. Don't care." for some reason. I've heard both of these things and neither of them make any sense.
        lrhot9 15y ago
        And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: The modern godless creationist in full crusader gear. Thank you, it's been a pleasure.