7 ms·

"men considerably outnumber women. We (and I mean the egalitarian "we") have to do something about that." Why? What is that evidence of? You assume sexism pr

"men considerably outnumber women. We (and I mean the egalitarian "we") have to do something about that." Why? What is that evidence of? You assume sexism presumably. Men and women are different and have predispositions to excel in different areas. You know what would be really weird? A 50/50 split. Why is that the definition of correct? Why are so few people rational about this?

_xo_ 13y ago
Even assuming you are correct about this - CS is not one of these areas. If you go back a few decades, programming was a much more even leveled field. In the 80s, approximately 50% of all programmers were female. (For numbers see e.g. http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/ http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/)
- onmydesk 13y ago
  Why is 50% correct? Why was that right and later lower values wrong? What is the rationale?
  - gtremper 13y ago
    Because 50% of humans are female. If there's a strong deviation from this in a large sample size, then there must be a correlation between being a woman and in CS. If gender didn't matter, there wouldn't be a correlation.
    - onmydesk 13y ago
      I don't deny the correlation. I question the assumption that it is due to prejudice. It could be due to differences in the predispositions to excel at different types of work between the sexes. Men and women are different. Why are so many professional basket ball players black? Racism? There is an implicit assumption in this and its validity is assumed. It is not being questioned.
  - nsxwolf 13y ago
    The rationale is wishful thinking and nothing more. Some people need to believe men and women are the same in every possible way in all cultures.
    - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
      100 percent of pregnancies are women :( there is some obvious discrimination going on!
      - Crake 13y ago
        Damn, I knew science was a tool of the patriarchy!
  - chc 13y ago
    It's not that the numbers are "right" or "wrong." It's that the data shows there is nothing inherent about computer science that excludes women. So if women are not interested these days, there is something about the current state of affairs that is creating the friction. What we are doing here is rejecting the hypothesis "Women are simply, as a matter of nature, disinclined to go into computer science." "Right" and "wrong" are judgment calls, though most people do feel that keeping women out of a field with no natural barriers to them is wrong. Regardless of your personal values, the historical data shows that whatever barriers exist are not natural.
    - elohesra 13y ago
      I don't actually think women are unsuited for CS, but I must say that I don't find the argument that 'in the past more women were in CS' very compelling, because it makes the pretense that all variables have remained constant over the past 40 years. The fact is that CS -- or what people on HN call CS -- has changed massively in 40 years. For instance, startups barely even existed 40 years ago, and they certainly weren't as hyped as they are now. Furthermore, gender roles have changed in the past 40 years, as has female college admission. There's something ironically conservative in democrat-styled liberals' [0] harking back to the CS of yesteryear where gender equality was the norm. Societies change, as do fields of work. If I had to take a pundit's guess at the reason, I'd probably say that we have similar raw numbers of women in the field now as then, but more men have flocked to the field as it's proved itself as an excellent means of generating wealth, thus upsetting the ratio. In all honesty, if I were to guess at the reason there aren't many women in CS, I'd say it's because women don't tend to care as much as men do about generating wealth. Warren Farrell's 'Why Men Earn More' came to similar conclusions: that men are more disposed to taking nastier, more stressful jobs if the pay will be higher. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem that the easiest way to attract women to tech would be to get everyone -- irrespective of gender -- involved in CS at a young age, and allow them to see how fun it can be. If women genuinely do choose to work in careers that they find fulfilling, then this would achieve the goal of increasing the numbers of women in tech without having to discriminate in any way, simply by getting more women to self-select into tech. [0] I must say, from the point of view of a UK liberal, there doesn't seem to be much liberalism in the US definition of the term. It seems closer to socialism from where I'm standing, with its heaps of top-down reforms and regulations. Yes, this is irrelevant, and no I'm not willing to defend this statement, since -- as a UK citizen -- I have no dog in this race.
- cube_yellow 13y ago
  It looks like the average CS guy went from rather alpha to rather beta. So, the solution is for CS guys to start working out and stop playing video games. Creepy is code for unattractive, so if CS guys took much better care of themselves, socially intelligent women wouldn't be rightfully put off from CS in general.
  - quanticle 13y ago
    I'm sorry, in what mystical era were CS grads ever "alpha"?
    - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
      He's insecure and judges people and himself based on how manly and muscled they are. Read his other comments. Good guy, just needs to let go of things that don't matter.
      - cube_yellow 13y ago
        There are no net downsides to placing a very high priority on becoming more "manly and muscled". I don't think any guy anywhere has ever regretted doing that. To me, it seems like a very obvious and neutral thing to evangelize.
  - Mz 13y ago
    Creepy is code for unattractive I am really tired of hearing that. I do not think that is what women mean when they refer to someone as "creepy." Closer to "unattractive and won't give up in the face of no" perhaps.
    - cube_yellow 13y ago
      You can be creepy without even saying anything. E.g. "creepy guy standing in the corner".
      - Mz 13y ago
- facepalm 13y ago
  I don't think you can just compare programming in the 80ies to programming today. Also, would you therefore say society was more equal in the 80ies than today?
enlightenedfool 13y ago
And there are fields where women outnumber men. No one ever bothered to think about equality there and having the need to "uplift" men
- woofyman 13y ago
  Oh, you mean like this ? http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/effective-strategies http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/ef... Effective Strategies for Increasing Diversity in Nursing Programs
dandrews 13y ago
Careful with that. You saw what happened to Larry Summers, right? Seriously, I take your point about the differences between men and women. I saw the news tidbit a few weeks ago about the study on toddlers and the toys they prefer. I'm willing to treat those studies objectively. Yet in the case I cited, fewer than three percent of attendees at a technical conference were women. "Predispositions to excel" or not, that's a statistic too big to ignore, and there's something else going on.
- onmydesk 13y ago
  Without looking into it the percentage that suggests no prejudice is unknown, so we don't actually know if 3% is where it 'should' be for that to be true, or the much assumed 50%. It has no basis in fact is my point really. And I'm uncomfortable in applying sexism as a solution to perceived sexism. Im confused why everyone isn't uncomfortable with that.
  - elohesra 13y ago
    If I had to put my cynic hat on (oh who am I kidding? I never took it off) I'd say it's because the people who're 'comfortable' with any form of discrimination tend to benefit from it. The men currently in tech who support pro-female discrimination aren't going to be affected by it: they're already in tech, and they already had a chance to enter it before their asinine discriminatory policies came into effect. They benefit from feeling they've achieved some good (irrespective of whether they actually have). The same is true of powerful people who aren't dependent on an equal playing field, such as politicians, the wealthy, and current business leaders. Such people won't be affected by proposing a piss-poor solution, so if they can feel like a champ for doing so, then they'll do so. A less cynical view is that such people are simply bad at logic; that they don't understand that you form theories from evidence, rather than using evidence to support theories. The trouble with all gender politics is that it's too emotional an issue. All parties feel threatened, and all parties feel that they're the ones being shafted. In an atmosphere so hostile to reason, I'm just grateful that no-one has jumped to gulags and gas chambers as a solution. Oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Cutting_Up_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Cutting_Up_Men
enneff 13y ago
> Men and women are different and have predispositions to excel in different areas. Then how do you explain the radical skew toward gender imbalance that occurred after the field of programming came into being? Back in the 60s and 70s there were many more women in computing research than there are today. This is not because of "predispositions". It is cultural.
- Crake 13y ago
  I agree it's cultural. Theory: Women have more options now. They're choosing them. Men have the same options now as they did then. They're choosing from a much more limited selection pool.
microjesus 13y ago
Yes, must we all have the same interests and be represented in all fields in a proportionate split? This presumed sexism is something that I have never seen in person, nor heard of from female colleagues/friends. If there are groups of women that need to view others of their gender succeeding to be sufficiently influenced, then they need to find another field; versus being pushed and coddled into tech.

_xo_ 13y ago

Even assuming you are correct about this - CS is not one of these areas. If you go back a few decades, programming was a much more even leveled field. In the 80s, approximately 50% of all programmers were female. (For numbers see e.g. http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/ http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/)

onmydesk 13y ago
Why is 50% correct? Why was that right and later lower values wrong? What is the rationale?
- gtremper 13y ago
  Because 50% of humans are female. If there's a strong deviation from this in a large sample size, then there must be a correlation between being a woman and in CS. If gender didn't matter, there wouldn't be a correlation.
  - onmydesk 13y ago
    I don't deny the correlation. I question the assumption that it is due to prejudice. It could be due to differences in the predispositions to excel at different types of work between the sexes. Men and women are different. Why are so many professional basket ball players black? Racism? There is an implicit assumption in this and its validity is assumed. It is not being questioned.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  The rationale is wishful thinking and nothing more. Some people need to believe men and women are the same in every possible way in all cultures.
  - thesimpsons1022 13y ago
    100 percent of pregnancies are women :( there is some obvious discrimination going on!
    - Crake 13y ago
      Damn, I knew science was a tool of the patriarchy!
- chc 13y ago
  It's not that the numbers are "right" or "wrong." It's that the data shows there is nothing inherent about computer science that excludes women. So if women are not interested these days, there is something about the current state of affairs that is creating the friction. What we are doing here is rejecting the hypothesis "Women are simply, as a matter of nature, disinclined to go into computer science." "Right" and "wrong" are judgment calls, though most people do feel that keeping women out of a field with no natural barriers to them is wrong. Regardless of your personal values, the historical data shows that whatever barriers exist are not natural.
  - elohesra 13y ago
    I don't actually think women are unsuited for CS, but I must say that I don't find the argument that 'in the past more women were in CS' very compelling, because it makes the pretense that all variables have remained constant over the past 40 years. The fact is that CS -- or what people on HN call CS -- has changed massively in 40 years. For instance, startups barely even existed 40 years ago, and they certainly weren't as hyped as they are now. Furthermore, gender roles have changed in the past 40 years, as has female college admission. There's something ironically conservative in democrat-styled liberals' [0] harking back to the CS of yesteryear where gender equality was the norm. Societies change, as do fields of work. If I had to take a pundit's guess at the reason, I'd probably say that we have similar raw numbers of women in the field now as then, but more men have flocked to the field as it's proved itself as an excellent means of generating wealth, thus upsetting the ratio. In all honesty, if I were to guess at the reason there aren't many women in CS, I'd say it's because women don't tend to care as much as men do about generating wealth. Warren Farrell's 'Why Men Earn More' came to similar conclusions: that men are more disposed to taking nastier, more stressful jobs if the pay will be higher. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem that the easiest way to attract women to tech would be to get everyone -- irrespective of gender -- involved in CS at a young age, and allow them to see how fun it can be. If women genuinely do choose to work in careers that they find fulfilling, then this would achieve the goal of increasing the numbers of women in tech without having to discriminate in any way, simply by getting more women to self-select into tech. [0] I must say, from the point of view of a UK liberal, there doesn't seem to be much liberalism in the US definition of the term. It seems closer to socialism from where I'm standing, with its heaps of top-down reforms and regulations. Yes, this is irrelevant, and no I'm not willing to defend this statement, since -- as a UK citizen -- I have no dog in this race.
cube_yellow 13y ago
It looks like the average CS guy went from rather alpha to rather beta. So, the solution is for CS guys to start working out and stop playing video games. Creepy is code for unattractive, so if CS guys took much better care of themselves, socially intelligent women wouldn't be rightfully put off from CS in general.
- quanticle 13y ago
  I'm sorry, in what mystical era were CS grads ever "alpha"?
  - ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
    He's insecure and judges people and himself based on how manly and muscled they are. Read his other comments. Good guy, just needs to let go of things that don't matter.
    - cube_yellow 13y ago
      There are no net downsides to placing a very high priority on becoming more "manly and muscled". I don't think any guy anywhere has ever regretted doing that. To me, it seems like a very obvious and neutral thing to evangelize.
- Mz 13y ago
  Creepy is code for unattractive I am really tired of hearing that. I do not think that is what women mean when they refer to someone as "creepy." Closer to "unattractive and won't give up in the face of no" perhaps.
  - cube_yellow 13y ago
    You can be creepy without even saying anything. E.g. "creepy guy standing in the corner".
    - Mz 13y ago
facepalm 13y ago
I don't think you can just compare programming in the 80ies to programming today. Also, would you therefore say society was more equal in the 80ies than today?

enlightenedfool 13y ago

And there are fields where women outnumber men. No one ever bothered to think about equality there and having the need to "uplift" men

woofyman 13y ago
Oh, you mean like this ? http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/effective-strategies http://www.aacn.nche.edu/aacn-publications/issue-bulletin/ef... Effective Strategies for Increasing Diversity in Nursing Programs

dandrews 13y ago

Careful with that. You saw what happened to Larry Summers, right? Seriously, I take your point about the differences between men and women. I saw the news tidbit a few weeks ago about the study on toddlers and the toys they prefer. I'm willing to treat those studies objectively. Yet in the case I cited, fewer than three percent of attendees at a technical conference were women. "Predispositions to excel" or not, that's a statistic too big to ignore, and there's something else going on.

onmydesk 13y ago
Without looking into it the percentage that suggests no prejudice is unknown, so we don't actually know if 3% is where it 'should' be for that to be true, or the much assumed 50%. It has no basis in fact is my point really. And I'm uncomfortable in applying sexism as a solution to perceived sexism. Im confused why everyone isn't uncomfortable with that.
- elohesra 13y ago
  If I had to put my cynic hat on (oh who am I kidding? I never took it off) I'd say it's because the people who're 'comfortable' with any form of discrimination tend to benefit from it. The men currently in tech who support pro-female discrimination aren't going to be affected by it: they're already in tech, and they already had a chance to enter it before their asinine discriminatory policies came into effect. They benefit from feeling they've achieved some good (irrespective of whether they actually have). The same is true of powerful people who aren't dependent on an equal playing field, such as politicians, the wealthy, and current business leaders. Such people won't be affected by proposing a piss-poor solution, so if they can feel like a champ for doing so, then they'll do so. A less cynical view is that such people are simply bad at logic; that they don't understand that you form theories from evidence, rather than using evidence to support theories. The trouble with all gender politics is that it's too emotional an issue. All parties feel threatened, and all parties feel that they're the ones being shafted. In an atmosphere so hostile to reason, I'm just grateful that no-one has jumped to gulags and gas chambers as a solution. Oh wait... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Cutting_Up_Men http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Cutting_Up_Men

enneff 13y ago

> Men and women are different and have predispositions to excel in different areas. Then how do you explain the radical skew toward gender imbalance that occurred after the field of programming came into being? Back in the 60s and 70s there were many more women in computing research than there are today. This is not because of "predispositions". It is cultural.

Crake 13y ago
I agree it's cultural. Theory: Women have more options now. They're choosing them. Men have the same options now as they did then. They're choosing from a much more limited selection pool.

microjesus 13y ago

Yes, must we all have the same interests and be represented in all fields in a proportionate split? This presumed sexism is something that I have never seen in person, nor heard of from female colleagues/friends. If there are groups of women that need to view others of their gender succeeding to be sufficiently influenced, then they need to find another field; versus being pushed and coddled into tech.