5 ms·

She isn't upset by the fact that the ladies room was relabeled as a mens room, she was frustrated by the fact that she didn't find as many female peers at the c

by rbellio 14y ago

She isn't upset by the fact that the ladies room was relabeled as a mens room, she was frustrated by the fact that she didn't find as many female peers at the conference. She felt encouraged around other women to discuss technology and wants to encourage other women to become excited about the field. I have some insight into this. I'm engaged to a mechanical engineer who works in a largely male dominated industry. To this point, I've never heard her discuss another female engineer at her company. We've discussed the issues of women in engineering and how interesting the dynamics are for a woman and I can agree that it would be an enjoyable ideal if there were more women in her field. At the same time, she wants nothing to do with women in her field that are simply there to prove that women can do the same jobs as men. I have to agree with her on this point. Every time I see ads for computer schools encouraging people with no experience to get a degree and flood the market, I shake my head. Why should I want someone with no passion, who simply wants a job, to enter my market and drive down the price of labor? So, I understand where the author is coming from here. She enjoys the company of her sex and would like to have a larger network of her peers be female. I have no problem with that. I would say, though, to be careful about what you wish for. You want women who are passionate to join the workforce, not just any old gal.

shadowfiend 14y ago
“Why should I want someone with no passion, who simply wants a job, to enter my market and drive down the price of labor?” Because for every 10 people with no passion who simply want a job, you get one who is incredibly passionate but simply wanted a job. One who didn't realize that hey, this is actually pretty cool stuff, and maybe it's more than just a job, it can be a passion and a career. I am of course making up the numbers. But discarding someone because they don't care before they've even learned a subject is even sillier than assuming that women don't want to be in tech because they're not interested in tech, rather than simply because they never took to looking into it because of all of the stereotypes (many of them true) about the male dominance of the industry.
- rbellio 14y ago
  I may not have made it clear enough, but I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage women or non-technical people to pursue technical experience and/or education. I personally prefer to work in a diverse workforce and enjoy sharing my workday with people of different sexes, ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. I'm not sure what stereotypes you're referring to, either, as I personally have worked across a multitude of domains and have not seen any difference in the approach of the professional development world to that of the rest of the market (my last software company was co-founded by a woman in fact). I'm saying that simply wanting women or any other sociological division of people to be more prevalent for the sake of presence is a mistake. In your example, you say that out of 10 people that are encouraged/trained, you might get one very passionate developer. I know the math is made up, but if you look at this in the other direction, you now have 9 developers that are bad at their job, dislike/don't care about their job or possibly both. This would mean that 90% of the workforce is now comprised of people who are hindering the other 10%. That 90% of the code written is probably poorly executed. I think that the career of being a developer is attractive enough that anyone interested in pursuing it would see it as a viable option. Segregating encouragement along the line of sex I think does more harm then good though.
  - shadowfiend 14y ago
    We already have the more-to-fewer split of terrible programmers to great programmers. They just mostly happen to be men. That's all. Not having a passion for programming is not an exclusively female characteristic; neither is having an undiscovered passion. I expanded a bit on my underlying point at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4597547 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4597547 , and there is an excellent reply regarding early-stage discouragement by nancyhua there as well. I have no interest in a sociological division being more prevalent just because. The problem is they're subtly discouraged from joining our field altogether, and, as others have pointed out in the past, that means we're missing out on a full 50% of potential awesome developers (or whatever other subfield you want to talk about). Or potentially so. We don't know, because there isn't a truly equal sense of this field being a possibility.

by rbellio 14y ago

shadowfiend 14y ago

“Why should I want someone with no passion, who simply wants a job, to enter my market and drive down the price of labor?” Because for every 10 people with no passion who simply want a job, you get one who is incredibly passionate but simply wanted a job. One who didn't realize that hey, this is actually pretty cool stuff, and maybe it's more than just a job, it can be a passion and a career. I am of course making up the numbers. But discarding someone because they don't care before they've even learned a subject is even sillier than assuming that women don't want to be in tech because they're not interested in tech, rather than simply because they never took to looking into it because of all of the stereotypes (many of them true) about the male dominance of the industry.

rbellio 14y ago
I may not have made it clear enough, but I'm not saying we shouldn't encourage women or non-technical people to pursue technical experience and/or education. I personally prefer to work in a diverse workforce and enjoy sharing my workday with people of different sexes, ethnicities and cultural backgrounds. I'm not sure what stereotypes you're referring to, either, as I personally have worked across a multitude of domains and have not seen any difference in the approach of the professional development world to that of the rest of the market (my last software company was co-founded by a woman in fact). I'm saying that simply wanting women or any other sociological division of people to be more prevalent for the sake of presence is a mistake. In your example, you say that out of 10 people that are encouraged/trained, you might get one very passionate developer. I know the math is made up, but if you look at this in the other direction, you now have 9 developers that are bad at their job, dislike/don't care about their job or possibly both. This would mean that 90% of the workforce is now comprised of people who are hindering the other 10%. That 90% of the code written is probably poorly executed. I think that the career of being a developer is attractive enough that anyone interested in pursuing it would see it as a viable option. Segregating encouragement along the line of sex I think does more harm then good though.
- shadowfiend 14y ago
  We already have the more-to-fewer split of terrible programmers to great programmers. They just mostly happen to be men. That's all. Not having a passion for programming is not an exclusively female characteristic; neither is having an undiscovered passion. I expanded a bit on my underlying point at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4597547 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4597547 , and there is an excellent reply regarding early-stage discouragement by nancyhua there as well. I have no interest in a sociological division being more prevalent just because. The problem is they're subtly discouraged from joining our field altogether, and, as others have pointed out in the past, that means we're missing out on a full 50% of potential awesome developers (or whatever other subfield you want to talk about). Or potentially so. We don't know, because there isn't a truly equal sense of this field being a possibility.