4 ms·

Very interesting article. The problem I have with the particular form the tech-feminist crusades have taken is that it seems to me to be diversionary at a fund

by tragic 13y ago

Very interesting article. The problem I have with the particular form the tech-feminist crusades have taken is that it seems to me to be diversionary at a fundamental level. Women are not just under-represented in tech, but in the majority of the most lucrative professions as a whole. So, unless we accept the bogus argument that women are just naturally worse at stuff other than babies, we must assume that this is a problem with society as a whole (the dolls-versus-lego thing is a part of that, but not the only one). Women-only classes and so on may or may not help the particular women involved into the industry - I don't know. Presumably that can be empirically studied by people with the time and resources to do so. But the underlying problem is a matter for 'concerned citizens', not the tech industry as the tech industry. Crusading, say, for 'codes of conduct' at conferences has the seductive appeal of a modest and realisable goal; unfortunately, there is no nice, pat answer to gender inequality in society, as the last three centuries of 'concerned citizens' have learned. To put it bluntly, it's not dick jokes at PyCon keeping women out, any more than it's dick jokes at law school that produces the gender gap in law firms.

lexcorvus 13y ago
Women are not just under-represented in tech, but in the majority of the most lucrative professions as a whole. So, unless we accept the bogus argument that women are just naturally worse at stuff other than babies, we must assume that this is a problem with society as a whole (the dolls-versus-lego thing is a part of that, but not the only one). What about the possibility that men and women are different, and in particular that men are more naturally inclined to do things like sacrifice time and flexibility in order to make more money? There's no reason to expect a priori that men and women are identical in this regard. Indeed, evaluating Homo sapiens as a sexually dimorphic bipedal ape whose sexes have different reproductive incentives, it would be very surprising to find otherwise.
chrishynes 13y ago
I don't understand this line of thought. On the one hand, you obviously see women as disadvantaged in the current system. On the other, your ideal world is one in which women basically become men. Obviously, both men and women should be able to do what they want, whether that be raise a family, provide for that family, some of both, or not have a family at all. But does is a higher ratio of men to women in a given profession causatively show that women are disadvantaged? Is it only a good ratio when it is exactly 50/50%? You believe so, and don't consider any other alternative. Or could it be that it is a matter of personal choice based on a biological bias toward certain choices? You don't see the male 99% of garbage collectors as being an issue to be resolved. Maybe women tend to turn down the high pressure jobs and prefer to spend more time socializing and with family compared to men. Many studies have suggested the same. Could it be an issue of the ratio of testosterone vs. estrogen? Those types of hormonal differences are known to greatly influence the types of choices we're discussing here.

by tragic 13y ago

lexcorvus 13y ago

Women are not just under-represented in tech, but in the majority of the most lucrative professions as a whole. So, unless we accept the bogus argument that women are just naturally worse at stuff other than babies, we must assume that this is a problem with society as a whole (the dolls-versus-lego thing is a part of that, but not the only one). What about the possibility that men and women are different, and in particular that men are more naturally inclined to do things like sacrifice time and flexibility in order to make more money? There's no reason to expect a priori that men and women are identical in this regard. Indeed, evaluating Homo sapiens as a sexually dimorphic bipedal ape whose sexes have different reproductive incentives, it would be very surprising to find otherwise.

chrishynes 13y ago

I don't understand this line of thought. On the one hand, you obviously see women as disadvantaged in the current system. On the other, your ideal world is one in which women basically become men. Obviously, both men and women should be able to do what they want, whether that be raise a family, provide for that family, some of both, or not have a family at all. But does is a higher ratio of men to women in a given profession causatively show that women are disadvantaged? Is it only a good ratio when it is exactly 50/50%? You believe so, and don't consider any other alternative. Or could it be that it is a matter of personal choice based on a biological bias toward certain choices? You don't see the male 99% of garbage collectors as being an issue to be resolved. Maybe women tend to turn down the high pressure jobs and prefer to spend more time socializing and with family compared to men. Many studies have suggested the same. Could it be an issue of the ratio of testosterone vs. estrogen? Those types of hormonal differences are known to greatly influence the types of choices we're discussing here.