4 ms·

That assumption is also wrong, and while less insulting on a surface level, I’m not sure it’s any less harmful. Women are interested in all STEM fields but have

• tzs 2y ago
  If we change that from "women just generally aren't interested in software development at the same rate that men are" to "women aren't as interested in software development as a career at the same rate as men" then it might not be so wrong. I remember reading about a large study of pre-college students in OECD countries that found that while the top students in STEM fields were about equally split between boys and girls, for the boys it was more likely that they were only top in a STEM field. The girls were more likely to be top students in multiple fields. Students tend to go on to the field they are best in. For the top boy STEM students that tends to be STEM. For the top girl STEM students the field they are best in often turns out to be one of the non-STEM fields they are also top in.
• zahlman 2y ago
  >That assumption is also wrong... Women are interested in all STEM fields The research contradicts you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox). >We have tons of data on that, including experiments where using a feminine or masculine name changes how contributions are received. Your link is to reporting of a viral anecdote shared by an editor for a movie review site. It's also about how clients responded, not coworkers. Aside from the "experiment" being N=1, easily confounded by any number of factors (such as the simple fact that, from the client's perspective, a supposedly troublesome contact was being replaced at all), and at least partially an excuse for Mr. Schneider to complain publicly about his boss, all of this clearly has nothing to do with "STEM", let alone programming. Historically it has been common in programming circles to receive contributions under pseudonyms (or, for that matter, first-initial-plus-last-name usernames) that don't disclose gender. The argument you present here is simply not intellectually honest (and I have seen very similar arguments countless times over the years).
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • latexr 2y ago
    > The argument you present here is simply not intellectually honest (and I have seen very similar arguments countless times over the years). It takes a special kind of gall to accuse another of intellectual dishonesty by using a Wikipedia article as proof and in under thirty minutes in the same thread say that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42011586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42011586 Hard to find a better example of intellectual dishonesty than using a source as proof when it supports your argument and decrying it as unreliable when it doesn’t.
    • zahlman 2y ago
      I did not use that Wikipedia article as proof. I used it to cite the well known phenomenon to which I referred. There are plenty of sources available in the article to follow up on. Furthermore, the article I linked to is clearly distinct along the lines that I described in the other post: it's not trying to paint a historical narrative, but to document a phenomenon noted by researchers. I had thought this was a place where people don't stalk other users to try to attack them personally. (Also, your attempt to try to identify some kind of hypocrisy is ignoring the actual critique I offered of your own source.)
      • latexr 2y ago
        It’s the same thread, and a fairly short one. I read it again looking for new insights, as I often do, found someone criticising Wikipedia, and looked at the user name. Calling that stalking is delusional. Or, dare I say it, intellectually dishonest. My initial response was different, and I even thanked you for the correction, but I deleted it and posted a new one after suspecting (as per the above) that you might not be arguing in good faith. Please don’t try to play the victim when you’re the one who initiated the conversation with personal attacks.
        • deleted 2y ago