6 ms·

Nice to see a simple story of encouragement. My peer group is fortunately pretty diverse in terms of culture and country of origin, but it misses out on a reali

Nice to see a simple story of encouragement. My peer group is fortunately pretty diverse in terms of culture and country of origin, but it misses out on a realistic distribution of sex, which I think is important as well. As a “white male programmer”, I’ve always been uncomfortable with an imbalanced group; now, being in a relationship with a female programmer, I’m exposed to a lot more of the actual iniquities. We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry.

hingisundhorsa 13y ago
As a “<insert ethnicity here> <insert gender here> <insert sexual orientation here> programmer”, I've always been uncomfortable with race based or gender based or orientation based policies. Google would have been better off taking the time evaluating each participant and then making a judgement on whether that person would benefit from additional help. That would be better for everyone rather than blindly assuming every female needs assistance or every "insert ethnicity here" needs assistance.
- altero 13y ago
  But they do need help. Diversity is nice, but someone still has to do the actual work.
  - tomp 13y ago
    Many people need help. They need help because they are poor, or uneducated, or don't know anybody, but not because they are black, gay or women.
- 1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
  It's perplexing that to avoid gender discriminations, the solution is to discriminate against genders. I don't like these, I think they further the stigmatism that is native to our industry about gender discrimination. Specifically I'm bothered by direct benefits due to gender, I have no issue with educational programs as long as they remain open to all. I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear. I want to work with people who are truly excited about what they do. And choose it for no other reason then it was: fun, interesting, and exciting. Those would be awesome people to work with. Welcome!
  - ceol 13y ago
    If I have ten apples, and you have five apples, giving us both five apples doesn't make us equal. Likewise, giving both men and women grants (which are readily available anyway for both genders) doesn't suddenly fix the imbalance of women. It requires a targeted solution. > I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear. Well then you're barking up the wrong tree, because there are plenty of men who got into computer science because it's lucrative. On the other hand, if you told a woman, "Hey! Want to earn an upper-middle class income? All you have to do is spend every work day of your life dealing with crude jokes at your expense, boys' club mentalities, and an industry that has little more than contempt for you!" I doubt many would jump at the opportunity. The problem with sorting by how "truly excited" they are is that some women might not know how interesting programming is to them. They were never given the opportunity, and every time they got close, they were shunned or pushed back because of their gender. If you truly, honestly cannot see these grants as anything more than "reverse gender discrimination", I'd have to say you're part of the problem.
    - tomp 13y ago
      This comment would be OK if we were talking about the profession of lawyers, or doctors, or investment bankers, but programmers?! Programming is an ideal career for the introverted and "socially awkward". You don't need formal education, you don't need to talk to people, all you need is a computer and a book or internet connection, and most importantly, curiosity and desire to explore and learn about computers. You can't blame the lack of any of those on "boys' club" or "glass ceiling"; the best programmers are self-made, and nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers. I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. Yes, it's true that men outnumber women in the field of programming, but guess what: non-programmers outnumber programmers much much more! Less than 5% of the people I know are programmers, and I work as a programmer. Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?
      - ceol 13y ago
        > nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers. A lot is. Contrary to your comment, programmers have to interact with other people in order to participate in the industry, whether they're in college learning or have just taught themselves and are looking for a job. I've had quite a few female friends tell me about high school teachers and college professors who told them, straight to their faces, that programming was "for men" and they don't belong. There are still plenty of male employers who pass over perfectly qualified candidates just because they're women; plenty of male classmates who harass women with "get back in the kitchen" jokes. One of my friends even dropped out of the program all together because of it. > Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people? Because in order to make it more interesting to everybody, we need to even out our numbers. Otherwise, when we open up the field to everyone, all we're going to do is inflate the numbers without changing the ratio. The total number isn't the problem; it's the ratio.
nailer 13y ago
> We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry. Why? Primary education is overwhelmingly female, for example, but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry which they should be ashamed of. One should always judge the individual, and no person should ever be stopped from doing anything on the basis of their race, gender, or anything else. However part of that may mean accepting that, after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another. Personally, I'm not offended or sorry that early primary education is dominated by women. I think an excellent early primary education who is male should be able to each the heights of the profession, but I accept that biology may mean those who are interested in, or good at, the profession may be overwhelmingly female.
- ceol 13y ago
  > but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry Source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. The least you could do is a simple Google search,[0] which would show there is a movement to get more men into teaching. > after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another. What does this mean? That men "belong" to programming and women "belong" to primary school teaching? (Not college teaching, of course! That's still heavily dominated by men, because they evolved to prefer teaching college-level classes or something. It's biology, you see. There's a "professor" gene inside all men.) That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up. [0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching
  - nailer 13y ago
    >> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry > I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. That's a different matter. One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry. >> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another > What does this mean? I thought this was self explanatory but obviously not: after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that many of the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group. > That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up. Pardon? Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3]. Sex is a biological construct that is very much a real thing. [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.ht... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-bra... [3] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nyborg-Sex-related-di%EF%AC%80erences-in-general-intelligence-g-brain-size-and-social-status.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nybor...
jrs99 13y ago
In my opinion, it's not an industry problem. It's a SOCIETY problem.
- rimantas 13y ago
  In my opinion it is not a problem at all. But some want to see it as a problem. I wonder if the same people consider underrepresentation of females in garbage disposal or plumbing as a problem too.
  - evincarofautumn 13y ago
    Sex underrepresentation isn’t a problem itself. It’s a potential source of problems—if you saw some statistical outlier while profiling software, you’d pay more attention to it and verify whether it’s causing issues. Homogeneity of any kind tends to create bias and brittleness. When you ask women why they don’t program, there’s a mix of normal things like “I don’t find it interesting” and “I prefer X”; but many also say “I don’t feel welcome”, and I would like to improve on that. In the same way, when you ask black Americans why they don’t program, a disturbing number say things like “I never had access to a computer”.
    - icecreampain 13y ago
      "I don't feel welcome"? So what other people think is more important than applying oneself to a hobby / career that is intrinsically fair - computer's not being able to discriminate, talk or even think. If the excuse for not programming is based on other people's opinions of oneself, then I just regard it the same as fat people saying that they're fat because society shames them into eating - instead of just being honest and saying that they calorie intake is much larger than their output.

hingisundhorsa 13y ago

As a “<insert ethnicity here> <insert gender here> <insert sexual orientation here> programmer”, I've always been uncomfortable with race based or gender based or orientation based policies. Google would have been better off taking the time evaluating each participant and then making a judgement on whether that person would benefit from additional help. That would be better for everyone rather than blindly assuming every female needs assistance or every "insert ethnicity here" needs assistance.

altero 13y ago
But they do need help. Diversity is nice, but someone still has to do the actual work.
- tomp 13y ago
  Many people need help. They need help because they are poor, or uneducated, or don't know anybody, but not because they are black, gay or women.
1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
It's perplexing that to avoid gender discriminations, the solution is to discriminate against genders. I don't like these, I think they further the stigmatism that is native to our industry about gender discrimination. Specifically I'm bothered by direct benefits due to gender, I have no issue with educational programs as long as they remain open to all. I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear. I want to work with people who are truly excited about what they do. And choose it for no other reason then it was: fun, interesting, and exciting. Those would be awesome people to work with. Welcome!
- ceol 13y ago
  If I have ten apples, and you have five apples, giving us both five apples doesn't make us equal. Likewise, giving both men and women grants (which are readily available anyway for both genders) doesn't suddenly fix the imbalance of women. It requires a targeted solution. > I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear. Well then you're barking up the wrong tree, because there are plenty of men who got into computer science because it's lucrative. On the other hand, if you told a woman, "Hey! Want to earn an upper-middle class income? All you have to do is spend every work day of your life dealing with crude jokes at your expense, boys' club mentalities, and an industry that has little more than contempt for you!" I doubt many would jump at the opportunity. The problem with sorting by how "truly excited" they are is that some women might not know how interesting programming is to them. They were never given the opportunity, and every time they got close, they were shunned or pushed back because of their gender. If you truly, honestly cannot see these grants as anything more than "reverse gender discrimination", I'd have to say you're part of the problem.
  - tomp 13y ago
    This comment would be OK if we were talking about the profession of lawyers, or doctors, or investment bankers, but programmers?! Programming is an ideal career for the introverted and "socially awkward". You don't need formal education, you don't need to talk to people, all you need is a computer and a book or internet connection, and most importantly, curiosity and desire to explore and learn about computers. You can't blame the lack of any of those on "boys' club" or "glass ceiling"; the best programmers are self-made, and nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers. I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. Yes, it's true that men outnumber women in the field of programming, but guess what: non-programmers outnumber programmers much much more! Less than 5% of the people I know are programmers, and I work as a programmer. Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?
    - ceol 13y ago
      > nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers. A lot is. Contrary to your comment, programmers have to interact with other people in order to participate in the industry, whether they're in college learning or have just taught themselves and are looking for a job. I've had quite a few female friends tell me about high school teachers and college professors who told them, straight to their faces, that programming was "for men" and they don't belong. There are still plenty of male employers who pass over perfectly qualified candidates just because they're women; plenty of male classmates who harass women with "get back in the kitchen" jokes. One of my friends even dropped out of the program all together because of it. > Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people? Because in order to make it more interesting to everybody, we need to even out our numbers. Otherwise, when we open up the field to everyone, all we're going to do is inflate the numbers without changing the ratio. The total number isn't the problem; it's the ratio.

nailer 13y ago

> We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry. Why? Primary education is overwhelmingly female, for example, but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry which they should be ashamed of. One should always judge the individual, and no person should ever be stopped from doing anything on the basis of their race, gender, or anything else. However part of that may mean accepting that, after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another. Personally, I'm not offended or sorry that early primary education is dominated by women. I think an excellent early primary education who is male should be able to each the heights of the profession, but I accept that biology may mean those who are interested in, or good at, the profession may be overwhelmingly female.

ceol 13y ago
> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry Source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. The least you could do is a simple Google search,[0] which would show there is a movement to get more men into teaching. > after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another. What does this mean? That men "belong" to programming and women "belong" to primary school teaching? (Not college teaching, of course! That's still heavily dominated by men, because they evolved to prefer teaching college-level classes or something. It's biology, you see. There's a "professor" gene inside all men.) That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up. [0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching
- nailer 13y ago
  >> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry > I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. That's a different matter. One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry. >> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another > What does this mean? I thought this was self explanatory but obviously not: after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that many of the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group. > That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up. Pardon? Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3]. Sex is a biological construct that is very much a real thing. [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.ht... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-bra... [3] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nyborg-Sex-related-di%EF%AC%80erences-in-general-intelligence-g-brain-size-and-social-status.pdf http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nybor...

jrs99 13y ago

In my opinion, it's not an industry problem. It's a SOCIETY problem.

rimantas 13y ago
In my opinion it is not a problem at all. But some want to see it as a problem. I wonder if the same people consider underrepresentation of females in garbage disposal or plumbing as a problem too.
- evincarofautumn 13y ago
  Sex underrepresentation isn’t a problem itself. It’s a potential source of problems—if you saw some statistical outlier while profiling software, you’d pay more attention to it and verify whether it’s causing issues. Homogeneity of any kind tends to create bias and brittleness. When you ask women why they don’t program, there’s a mix of normal things like “I don’t find it interesting” and “I prefer X”; but many also say “I don’t feel welcome”, and I would like to improve on that. In the same way, when you ask black Americans why they don’t program, a disturbing number say things like “I never had access to a computer”.
  - icecreampain 13y ago
    "I don't feel welcome"? So what other people think is more important than applying oneself to a hobby / career that is intrinsically fair - computer's not being able to discriminate, talk or even think. If the excuse for not programming is based on other people's opinions of oneself, then I just regard it the same as fat people saying that they're fat because society shames them into eating - instead of just being honest and saying that they calorie intake is much larger than their output.