Comment by ffn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffn | Hacker News Reader

Or it could be that tons of girls get sold into taking up the tech field at a young and impressionable age by presidential speeches, books telling them to "lean in", and articles like this that hint there is some conspiracy of men out there actively working to damage women and they are needed to right the wrong.

Then, after spending 4+ years in college studying surface friction losses or CRDT applications without tombstones, and n+ years in industry trying to debug someone else's too-clever binary-flag-in-ruby code, a large number of them (the ones who dreamed of sexist careers like fashion designer, models, teachers, or most sexist of them all mothers) realize they really don't enjoy this work, there was never any "painful injustice" that needed their "sacrifice" to right, and that they've just been tricked by the popular political agenda. And, after effectively wasting a decade of their lives chasing careers that means nothing to them, they quit and actually go follow their dreams (instead of someone else's).

I doubt many women enter the field for some kind of social justice reason, how about we look at more likely explainations.

Ummm.... no.

At least not with the data points that I have. 1) Former boss, who is now managing over 100 people at Intel. Smart engineer and totally into the technology. I loved working for her. 2) Former female employees and coworkers that are every bit as much into the technology and every bit as capable as male engineers. 3) Friend and female no-nonsense CEO of startup who has had to fight jack-asses like you for her entire career and would very quickly plant her boot up your ass for talking that way. 4) My own daughter, headed off to MIT this fall, who is very capable of doing the bench work and has been instructed in no uncertain terms that if some lab partner displays your attitude and says something like: "Let me do the measurements and you can just write them down for me, sweetheart." that she is to grab the multi-meter probes and poke the bastard's eyes out.

Wake up and grow up, dude. The world has changed.

> The world has changed.

The nature of people has not.

I feel like maybe you are overstating the case, but I gave you an upvote anyway, since I think there is a case to be made along those lines.

I upvoted the article as well, for similar reasons.

What is the case to be made along those lines--a case based on evidence and not rank speculation?

I loved building software. Like nearly everyone here on HN, I put up with the drudgery of debugging race conditions in other peoples' code in return for the opportunity to work on the fun parts. Why should we credit an argument that presupposes that women wouldn't feel the same way? In particular, why should we credit that argument over the article's argument: that women leave the profession in greater numbers because men give them more of the drudgery and less of the fun stuff?

Then, after spending 4+ years in college studying surface friction losses or CRDT applications without tombstones, and n+ years in industry trying to debug someone else's too-clever binary-flag-in-ruby code, a large number of them ... realize they really don't enjoy this work

So... on average you believe men just like engineering more than women?

Because of... what... genetics or something?

Seems to me that genetics is a perfectly acceptable answer.

It was a perfectly acceptable answer to justify segregation, too... using "genetics" as a basis for justifying social bias is a very dangerous road to go down unless you're certain you're on extremely firm ground.

> It was a perfectly acceptable answer to justify segregation

Actually, no. It was not an acceptable answer to justify segregation.

I believe the other commenter was saying that at the time people believed it was an acceptable answer, just as now you're saying it's a plausible explanation for this problem.

Yes, thanks, I didn't think I'd actually need to be that explicit... lesson learned!

No need to be explicit. I understood your intended meaning just fine.

Yes, I understood he was referencing "at the time", that's why I included the word _was_. My point still stands. Although many people did accept it, it WAS not an acceptable answer, and IS still not an acceptable answer to justify segregation.

So wait, do you reject the possibility that this situation couldn't be the exact same as the one in the past? It seems like you're saying, "Yes, genetics was not an acceptable answer then, but it is now."

If that is what you're saying, then what makes it different now?

If there was any evidence supporting that answer, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com