6 ms·

>Most people are sexist And you are basing that on what? >Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by f

>Most people are sexist And you are basing that on what? >Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men? What an absurdly loaded question. Because feminists were attacking an ally over nothing. "Mansplaining" is not a thing, it is a term made up specifically by sexists to dismiss people they do not wish to be heard. >Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with? Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields. >No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role Again, what are you basing that on? All scientific evidence suggests that gender roles are deeply rooted in our genes. There is absolutely no evidence to support the widely discredited nurture only hypothesis. >And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance. No it does not. >Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights? It isn't. And why do you conflate "anti-feminist" with anti woman? Most women are not feminists, and do not support feminism. >Why is government so male dominated? Because few women wish to be in government. Notice how often we get elected when we run? >Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power? Putting aside your condescending lie, no, why would that concern me? I do not care what sex organs the people I elect posses, I care that they do what we elect them to do. They overwhelmingly introduce, support, and vote for things that women want. Even when they are outright sexist things that women should not be seeking like remedies to the mythological wage gap. >You also seem to imply that I identify as female. I seem to do no such thing.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dang 12y ago
> Putting aside your condescending lie No personal attacks on Hacker News, please, regardless of how provocative someone else may have been. All: Please keep this thread civil and substantive.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  It is not an attack. It is an accurate description of his words.
  - jolux 12y ago
    I'm not a he.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      "I'm not a she". "I'm not a he". Guess how much I care?
tptacek 12y ago
Even if it were true, "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" would beg the question. Why do they not wish to be in STEM fields? One straightforward factor might be the isolation they'd experience in being a tiny minority. The term "feminist" is being tossed around pretty casually, too. That's convenient for both sides of the argument but unfortunate for truth-seeking, since the term can mean whatever the arguer wants it to be. I presume most women do in fact want equal rights, for instance. Most women probably don't want the end of all men. The term "STEM" is also being used haphazardly. Your assertion that "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" doesn't square with the facts. What would have been more accurate would be to say that most women don't want to work in computer science. But that's a less defensible gap; it's hard to come up with a compelling reason why women would want to be chemists, doctors, or actuaries, but not computer scientists.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  It raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The most straightforward factor is that men and women are actually different. Many studies have shown that innate gender preferences manifest in infancy. I knew I was different from most girls when I was very young. The vast majority of other women I've met at work and at conferences have been similar. We were into "boy stuff". That's perfectly fine. But it doesn't mean the girls who are not into "boy stuff" are broken and need to be fixed.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This argument is so vague that it could be used to justify virtually any gender discrimination. If this issue is so simple and straightforward as to be disposed of in a 90 word comment, why aren't you able to connect any specific difference between men and women to the computer science field, or to explain why women are so comfortable in other STEM fields? That aside: yes, I was intending to suggest that your previous argument was fallacious. I don't believe the premise of your argument was valid. But even had it been, it would still not answer the question it pretends to answer.
    - 12y ago
Infinitesimus 12y ago
>Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields. I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases. That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field. The argument is that traditionally underrepresented groups ( obvious things like race, gender) might benefit from being exposed to prominent figures in the desired field early on. I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. And even if it was true that fewer women wanted to be in STEM fields, is this simply a reinforcement of the fact that few exist in the field to begin with?
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  >I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. >That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field. Except I did grow up like that, and it did not influence what fields I was interested in at all. >I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. Many studies have shown innate gender preferences begin before socialization. It seems unlikely that STEM is somehow uniquely affected by it. Especially since the number of women in CS has been going down as we've been making such a big fuss about women in CS.
  - jolux 12y ago
    >Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.
    - 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dang 12y ago

> Putting aside your condescending lie No personal attacks on Hacker News, please, regardless of how provocative someone else may have been. All: Please keep this thread civil and substantive.

imanaccount247 12y ago
It is not an attack. It is an accurate description of his words.
- jolux 12y ago
  I'm not a he.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    "I'm not a she". "I'm not a he". Guess how much I care?

tptacek 12y ago

Even if it were true, "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" would beg the question. Why do they not wish to be in STEM fields? One straightforward factor might be the isolation they'd experience in being a tiny minority. The term "feminist" is being tossed around pretty casually, too. That's convenient for both sides of the argument but unfortunate for truth-seeking, since the term can mean whatever the arguer wants it to be. I presume most women do in fact want equal rights, for instance. Most women probably don't want the end of all men. The term "STEM" is also being used haphazardly. Your assertion that "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" doesn't square with the facts. What would have been more accurate would be to say that most women don't want to work in computer science. But that's a less defensible gap; it's hard to come up with a compelling reason why women would want to be chemists, doctors, or actuaries, but not computer scientists.

imanaccount247 12y ago
It raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The most straightforward factor is that men and women are actually different. Many studies have shown that innate gender preferences manifest in infancy. I knew I was different from most girls when I was very young. The vast majority of other women I've met at work and at conferences have been similar. We were into "boy stuff". That's perfectly fine. But it doesn't mean the girls who are not into "boy stuff" are broken and need to be fixed.
- tptacek 12y ago
  This argument is so vague that it could be used to justify virtually any gender discrimination. If this issue is so simple and straightforward as to be disposed of in a 90 word comment, why aren't you able to connect any specific difference between men and women to the computer science field, or to explain why women are so comfortable in other STEM fields? That aside: yes, I was intending to suggest that your previous argument was fallacious. I don't believe the premise of your argument was valid. But even had it been, it would still not answer the question it pretends to answer.
  - 12y ago

Infinitesimus 12y ago

>Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields. I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases. That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field. The argument is that traditionally underrepresented groups ( obvious things like race, gender) might benefit from being exposed to prominent figures in the desired field early on. I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. And even if it was true that fewer women wanted to be in STEM fields, is this simply a reinforcement of the fact that few exist in the field to begin with?

imanaccount247 12y ago
>I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. >That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field. Except I did grow up like that, and it did not influence what fields I was interested in at all. >I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. Many studies have shown innate gender preferences begin before socialization. It seems unlikely that STEM is somehow uniquely affected by it. Especially since the number of women in CS has been going down as we've been making such a big fuss about women in CS.
- jolux 12y ago
  >Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture. Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.
  - 12y ago