8 ms·

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 ti

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
- Crake 13y ago
  As a person in the demographic they claim to be trying to help, I'm confused too. I'M definitely uncomfortable with it, but according to these guys I'm too stupid to understand anything about my life.
cube_yellow 13y ago
> there's something else going on. It's irresponsible and misogynistic to assume this is true. Irresponsible as it's used as an axiom for powerful political movements, and you as a smart person, should confirm this (and not via feels) before stamping your name across it; there is nothing 'else' going on. Misogynistic because you disrespect a woman's agency to choose her own profession.
- danilocampos 13y ago
  That's cute, but attrition for female tech workers is double that of men. Something is going on.
  - cube_yellow 13y ago
    Yeah, women are raising kids. And, they negotiate lower pay, so are less invested in the industry. And, they find opportunities in other industries more enticing than men, so are more likely to jump ship for more pleasant pastures. And, and, and shit that people in tech shouldn't bust a brain cell over figuring out and seeking rent to validate their feelings. If you haven't had your warm fuzzies for today, go work a soup kitchen. If you're the guy creeping women out, then work out and learn social skills. This is not that complicated and it disappoints me to see it on hn.
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
      I wonder what the rate of attrition is for women in other fields. Also w/r/t/ negotiation and pay, check out things like this: http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/23/0361684312455524.abstract http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/23/036168431245... """ Policy makers, academics, and media reports suggest that women could shrink the gender pay gap by negotiating more effectively for higher compensation. Yet women entering compensation negotiations face a dilemma: They have to weigh the benefits of negotiating against the social consequences of having negotiated. Research shows that women are penalized socially more than men for negotiating for higher pay"""
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
You saw there was a study in the AMS Notices a few years after the fact that said 'actually Larry Summers is full of shit, here's the data,' right?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  Getting downvoted for this, so I'll just drop some facts here: http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
  - pervycreeper 13y ago
    That's an interesting paper. I am not a statistician or professional scientist, however, I was surprised at the amount of story telling involved in their analyses, and how often they would exclude certain data based on those stories. Is doing this common in studies like this? It seems one could make the same data say anything by using this approach. I am particularly perplexed by their discussion of what they term "the variability hypothesis", which states that because: 1- a higher statistical variance in the distribution of some attribute in one population vs another population leads to a larger difference in relative representation of the two populations the further from the mean you go (this is true a priori), and 2- men have a higher variance in "math ability" compared to women, then we will observe a significant difference in representation between the sexes at very high levels of ability. The authors mention that there is in fact a negative correlation between gender inequality and variance in ability (i.e. the more equal a society is, by their metrics, the higher the difference in variance in performance is between the sexes), which seems to elegantly support the variability hypothesis, to my understanding. I wonder if there has been any follow-up to this paper?
dcre 13y ago
Curious, what was the toddler study? I'm skeptical when studies like that make claims about "intrinsic" gender differences because boys and girls are treated differently by adults pretty much as soon as they're born. Girls are told their dress is so pretty, boys are told they're so big, etc. I think of it kind of like, "Hey, don't you want to play with trucks? You really want to play with trucks, don't you?" And then — big surprise — two-year-old boys like trucks.
Crake 13y ago
More opportunities these days for women than in the 1960s--they're off enjoying too many other things, in a lot of cases. If we expanded gender roles for men to encompass the same spread that women now have, maybe we'd see a bit more equality. You can try to convince women with a ton of options to come, or you can try to expand options for men, so that they aren't trapped into certain things because many others are closed to them.

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
Crake 13y ago
As a person in the demographic they claim to be trying to help, I'm confused too. I'M definitely uncomfortable with it, but according to these guys I'm too stupid to understand anything about my life.

cube_yellow 13y ago

> there's something else going on. It's irresponsible and misogynistic to assume this is true. Irresponsible as it's used as an axiom for powerful political movements, and you as a smart person, should confirm this (and not via feels) before stamping your name across it; there is nothing 'else' going on. Misogynistic because you disrespect a woman's agency to choose her own profession.

danilocampos 13y ago
That's cute, but attrition for female tech workers is double that of men. Something is going on.
- cube_yellow 13y ago
  Yeah, women are raising kids. And, they negotiate lower pay, so are less invested in the industry. And, they find opportunities in other industries more enticing than men, so are more likely to jump ship for more pleasant pastures. And, and, and shit that people in tech shouldn't bust a brain cell over figuring out and seeking rent to validate their feelings. If you haven't had your warm fuzzies for today, go work a soup kitchen. If you're the guy creeping women out, then work out and learn social skills. This is not that complicated and it disappoints me to see it on hn.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
    I wonder what the rate of attrition is for women in other fields. Also w/r/t/ negotiation and pay, check out things like this: http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/23/0361684312455524.abstract http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/08/23/036168431245... """ Policy makers, academics, and media reports suggest that women could shrink the gender pay gap by negotiating more effectively for higher compensation. Yet women entering compensation negotiations face a dilemma: They have to weigh the benefits of negotiating against the social consequences of having negotiated. Research shows that women are penalized socially more than men for negotiating for higher pay"""

GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago

You saw there was a study in the AMS Notices a few years after the fact that said 'actually Larry Summers is full of shit, here's the data,' right?

GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
Getting downvoted for this, so I'll just drop some facts here: http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
- pervycreeper 13y ago
  That's an interesting paper. I am not a statistician or professional scientist, however, I was surprised at the amount of story telling involved in their analyses, and how often they would exclude certain data based on those stories. Is doing this common in studies like this? It seems one could make the same data say anything by using this approach. I am particularly perplexed by their discussion of what they term "the variability hypothesis", which states that because: 1- a higher statistical variance in the distribution of some attribute in one population vs another population leads to a larger difference in relative representation of the two populations the further from the mean you go (this is true a priori), and 2- men have a higher variance in "math ability" compared to women, then we will observe a significant difference in representation between the sexes at very high levels of ability. The authors mention that there is in fact a negative correlation between gender inequality and variance in ability (i.e. the more equal a society is, by their metrics, the higher the difference in variance in performance is between the sexes), which seems to elegantly support the variability hypothesis, to my understanding. I wonder if there has been any follow-up to this paper?

dcre 13y ago

Curious, what was the toddler study? I'm skeptical when studies like that make claims about "intrinsic" gender differences because boys and girls are treated differently by adults pretty much as soon as they're born. Girls are told their dress is so pretty, boys are told they're so big, etc. I think of it kind of like, "Hey, don't you want to play with trucks? You really want to play with trucks, don't you?" And then — big surprise — two-year-old boys like trucks.

Crake 13y ago

More opportunities these days for women than in the 1960s--they're off enjoying too many other things, in a lot of cases. If we expanded gender roles for men to encompass the same spread that women now have, maybe we'd see a bit more equality. You can try to convince women with a ton of options to come, or you can try to expand options for men, so that they aren't trapped into certain things because many others are closed to them.