Hacker News Reader

Comment by calex | Hacker News Reader

Reading the comments on articles like this on hacker news always make me deeply uncomfortable to be a woman in tech.

I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google.

If you're a woman in this industry, it's GENERALLY because it is something that you very much care about and want to do.

It's not some feminist conspiracy that women are being promoted, it's just that the women who go into tech are usually already pretty gritty people. You're comparing a very driven and passionate subset of women to a very general subset of men.

Here's a really great article I read once -- "I need terrible female engineers": https://medium.com/@amyngyn/i-need-terrible-female-engineers...

View on HN

"I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google."

Is it hard to believe most men don't do those things, too? Some do, sure. And of people that do these things, historically more have probably been men than women (don't have the stats, but it sounds reasonable). But how many men do you think do those things, vs those that don't? Some anecdata: I didn't do any of those. Of all the engineers I can think of, male and female, very very few went to coding summer camps or took AP computer science. Few had best friends in CS in university, but sure, more did this than AP computer science or coding summer camp. And few had sweet internships at tech companies.

Oh great, more anecdotes in this thread. There are the cold hard facts, you know:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/techs-g...

>"It's already too late," Paul Graham, founder of the tech entrepreneur boot camp Y Combinator, said last month in a controversial interview. "What we should be doing is somehow changing the middle school computer science curriculum or something like that."

>Ericson's analysis of the data shows that in 2013, 18 percent of the students who took the [AP computer science] exam were women.

Who makes high school students' schedules? Parents and teachers, at least in the US.

So let's put aside anecdotes and reactionary attitudes and just look at the facts.

AP is generally elective.

>Who makes high school students' schedules?

The students. AP comp sci at my high school was an elective that people took. The people who didn't take it chose whatever elective they were interested in (water basket weaving, guitar, etc.).

And what motivated the people to choose AP comp sci? This is just an anecdote but almost everyone in my AP comp sci class was into gaming/nerdy hobbies/internet forums/etc.

Would you be surprised to find out that some parents decide on their high school students' electives for them?

If you mean "decide" as in force them to take it, then yes I would be surprised. In my experience, even the high achieving parents didn't force them to take specific classes. They put pressure on their kids (both genders equally, tiger mom does not care about gender roles) to take STEM AP classes in general instead of specific ones. Those students decide which STEM AP classes to take (except for Calc which parents stressed more).

This was before knowledge of comp sci salaries have gone mainstream (before 2012), although it's still a relevant, anecdotal reflection on the backgrounds of current software engineers.

My AP comp sci class was actually composed of non-high achieving people. AP comp sci was the only AP class many of the students took. The high achieving students didn't take AP comp sci for whatever reason.

I think AP comp sci was actually considered lower status/prestige compared to the sciences Physics/Chem/Bio among the high achieving students.

> The high achieving students didn't take AP comp sci for whatever reason.

Maybe they didn't like to take classes filled with spiteful boys with chips on their shoulders? The 'whatever reason' is the important part.

As someone who teaches females in middle school HTML/CSS this is very accurate. While the vast majority of them enjoy the course, when I survey them if they would continue learning to code they respond no more often than not.

Social stigma plays a large role at that age; this is also when they start thinking about boys and having self expression (clothes, music, books). It's _nerdy_ to be interested in computers. The know-it-all also becomes the outcast. That's the geek or loser. There's nothing more important than social status. It's really unfortunate.

So a boy wouldn't worry about appearing nerdy, a geek or loser as well?

Why do you think social stigma only apply to girls?

Happy to look at the facts. That more men than women take coding summer camps, AP CS, have friends who are CS major, or get referrals to top companies sound believable. Presenting evidence in the form of cold hard believable statistics would be nice. I don't see any, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I believe those claims anyway (though the AP CS stats of recent times might be different - what parent doesn't want their child to program? And women tend to get better grades than men and perform better in school settings, so more women might be in AP CS classes in recent years).

Again, men don't usually do the things you're claiming, either. You're claiming it with the language "women don't usually" because usually means more often than not - over half. But I'm open to changing my mind with stats. I'm happy to look at any you provide.

Do you have stats on most men being sent to coding summer camp as teenagers? Most men having parents that encourage them to take AP computer science? Most men having best friends who are in CS? Most men who refer them for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google?

Men usually don't do those things either. Just because more of the people that do those things are men than women, does not mean men, in general, do those things. That's my point.

what parent doesn't want their child to program?

In a weird sort of coincidence, I was recently talking to all of my couple friends at a large party. Of the 5 couples there, only 1 person had any desire to see their child(ren) go into programming. That particular child was a boy.

So there's some more anecdata, but basically I've never heard a non-programmer parent say they want their child to go into programming. It's always been something along the lines of "I want my child to do the same thing I do" or "I want my child to be a doctor/lawyer/engineer"

No one claimed "most men _______." The claim is that your average woman who is employed in this sector faced more adversity than your average man who is employed in this sector. Therefore, you'd expect the average woman employed to have more grit than the average man employed, since the women with less determination were filtered by various filters that don't exist for men.

You could argue that it's not a filter against women but a magnet towards men, but that doesn't actually change the crux of the argument. There is clearly something that causes only 18% of AP CS exams being taken by women.

Yes, that is the claim of white/male privilege.

However, the implication of saying that something "usually" doesn't happen to women, is that it usually happens to men. These were very specific benefits that do not usually happen to anyone. The statement is just as invalid as a privilege denyer saying "poor white people have less privilege than rich black people", except they were made for "your side" rather than "the enemy's side".

OP claimed most "most men _______." She made other claims as well, which I didn't respond to. She claimed "most men ________" when she implied most men experience code summer camps, parental encouragement to take AP CS classes, etc. She said "women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google."

Usually means "under normal conditions; generally." Generally means more often than not, meaning over half / most.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usually

>OP claimed most "most men _______."

I did NOT, you are misquoting me. I claimed (and cited) that OF the people who take AP CS and have the other resources I mentioned, most are men. That is all I claimed and you are all over this thread misinterpreting this.

You can check my original comment's edit history. I've changed nothing about what I said and I stand by it 100%.

Maybe you didn't intend to make the claim, but it's a claim you made. I quoted you extensively and characterized your words fairly and in context. Please point out anywhere where that isn't the case. If you claimed that OF the people who take AP CS, most are men, I would do nothing but agree with you. That is the case. You did not make that claim - you instead claimed, via implication, that MOST men do take AP CS (or go to summer coding camps, etc).

>Maybe you didn't intend to make the claim, but it's a claim you made ... You did not make that claim

You sound like a bad politician here. All I said is that GIRLS don't take AP CS and do not go to coding summer camp. The people who are doing these things are boys.

You have terrible reading comprehension and your pedantic citations of dictionaries and incorrect use of set theory belong on /r/iamverysmart

You sound like a bad politician here. ....

You have terrible reading comprehension and your pedantic citations of dictionaries and incorrect use of set theory belong on /r/iamverysmart

Ad hominems aren't appropriate on HN. It might be better if you took a breather at this point:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

And under what logical system does "women generally don't do ____" imply that "men generally do ____?"

At most, it implies that "more men than women generally do ______," which is totally true. Even that implication would be a bit of a leap were it not for parent's later explicit clarifications on the point.

I want to talk to you about two groups - tall people and short people. Usually, short people can't reach items that are on very high shelves.

Above, did I imply something about tall people's abilities to reach items on very high shelves? I didn't claim anything about tall people specifically. But I think I did make a claim about their abilities here, by implication, given the context. It's natural to infer the claim - this is just part of how people communicate. The claim is strongly implied - tall people can reach items on very high shelves.

I believe OP's clarified claim (of people in AP CS classes, most are men; of people at summer coding camps, most are men; etc), rather than OP's initial claim (most men take AP CS classes; etc). The clarified claim seems accurate. The initial claim is clearly inaccurate - and OP "stand[s] by it 100%".

yea exactly. 'Usually people don't fly' is valid statement grammatically but makes no sense.

English is an ambiguous language interpreted by flawed humans.

It feels like we're dancing around the issue. There's no reason for this line of thought to have continued like it has. "My side" should have made a polite comment, and when rebuffed, thought "they don't think it's a problem," and moved on. "Your side" should have thought "a slight rephrase could increase clarity and address their concerns." Instead we're just pointlessly banging our heads against a wall.

As is, both sides of this argument are actually pretty stupid. Mine included.

Haha, the most valuable lesson I got from my linguistics class was that language is obscenely difficult to generate and understand – even without "mistakes," understanding can suffer. It's worth stepping back and re-establishing common ground or giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Good point, thanks for introducing some sanity.

Here's the thing. Your point is not incorrect. The language she originally used wasn't totally 100% bulletproof. Things people say rarely are.

But your argument distracts from the fact that the phenomenon she described is very real. Women face challenges at every turn as they try to get into tech. One of those challenges is people like you who want to nitpick everything they say.

Why are you arguing with her? What is the point of it? Can't you accept that the general argument that women struggle to exist in the tech industry is real?

You're like a global warming denier fixating over some discrepancy in the data. You're not wrong, it's just beside the point. We need to be arguing over how to fix our gender issues, not whether they exist. And one of those ways, without a doubt, is getting more women to take the AP CS exam and go to programming summer programs.

Just because you're factually correct (which I'm not conceding here, but it shouldn't matter) doesn't mean your point has any merit.

> Who makes high school students' schedules? Parents and teachers, at least in the US.

As you were blasting "anecdotes", please note that this isn't even anecdote, just blind assertion, so: "Citation needed". In my experience, high school students largely decide their own schedules according to their interests and abilities.

Ahh, speaking of interests, and facts/data:

https://scientificfemanomaly.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/fem...

Interest by high school students in STEM fields. Girls 15% and falling, boys 45% and rising.

More facts/data:

http://mjperry.blogspot.de/2009/08/2009-math-sat-scores-are-...

Gender gap in SAT scores persists.

Yes, let's look at the facts!

Fact: facts are sometimes sexist.

Or interests/passions are in fact highly dependent upon social factors, such as sexism.

How many men do you know who are ballet dancers? Do you think that's because there's actually something present in the DNA of little girls that's not present in the DNA of little boys that makes them interested in ballet?

Or could it be because if you're a little girl who dances it's cute/pretty and if you're a boy it's because you're gay/weak?

This is the problem. If men hold a monopoly on powerful or lucrative roles in society, that monopoly will reign through the establishment of gender-dichotomous "interests and passions." Of course gender doesn't play any intrinsic role in whether you're into ballet. Nor does it play any intrinsic role in whether you're into computer science.

Perhaps I don't know enough about ballet, but my understanding was that it is physically demanding in ways that favor female physiology over male physiology (e.g. requires more flexibility). Not to say that the cultural aspect isn't there, but rather that the cultural aspect may be influenced by biological differences.

In professional ballet, men make up approximately 50% of the population. But of course there are physiological difference that change competencies.

Applying this to interests, however, implies that there is a neurological difference that makes women worse at computer science. There is not methodologically sound data to back this up.

How about any other form of dance? Or fashion design? Or theatre? Gymnastics? So on and so forth.

Of course there are biological differences that surface in all of these things. The question is whether these differences by themselves account for the disparities. Of course the answer is no.

> Do you think that's because there's actually something present in the DNA of little girls that's not present in the DNA of little boys that makes them interested in ballet?

Yes, probably related to the production of testosterone or a similar mechanism.

It's hardly surprising in a sexually dimorphic species.

And how do high school students get their interests and abilities?

> Ericson's analysis of the data shows that in 2013, 18 percent of the students who took the [AP computer science] exam were women.

I did a master's degree in computer science at the University of Texas at Arlington about 10 years ago. When I was there, I was one of only two white people (male or female) in the entire program, and one of only about five that weren't Indian citizens on special student visas. So Indian citizens, while making up a minuscule portion of the US population, represented 95+% of the CS student population at an American university.

So, which is it? Did UT Arlington commit a massive conspiracy to discriminate against white men? Or is it just that the people who were most interested and most inclined happened to be the ones that ended up there?

> Is it hard to believe most men don't do those things, too? Some do, sure.

I think this is more of a "of the people that get these things, most are men" than a "all men get these things."

YES, this is exactly what I meant. Thank you for not misunderstanding me.

I appreciate your comment, and I second your point about the education and social structure being different for girls/women. In my experience, it can be difficult for folks to understand just how different it can be - whether by gender, race, or lower socioeconomic status - which is completely fair. There are always exceptions to generalizations, which makes making progress in these arguments difficult.

For those who still believe it's a feminist conspiracy, I encourage you to read this brief report (with links to an excellent full report) with hard numbers on the experience of women in STEM: https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-st...

And if you think you're above bias, or that it doesn't exist against women, please challenge yourself with the unconscious bias test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html Stats are available after the test. I am a woman with a PhD in a STEM field, and guess what - I have biases against my own sex.

Not to detract from your general point, but there are serious doubts over the validity of the Implicit Association Test:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstra... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288582440_Toward_a_...

Seriously, why do you need to post this? This is the sort of thing that makes it hard to be a woman in tech. Everyone is constantly nitpicking everything you say.

Especially in tech, nitpicking should not be allowed. Approximate is good enough for everyone, it's not like a battery is suddenly gonna catch fire.

You're kidding, right? Wanting to have accurate information is sexist now?

   https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-st...

How is that a serious contribution to the discussion? The authors Hall, Phillips and Williams don't for a second reflect on their own confirmation bias.

   feminist conspiracy

The authors Hall, Phillips and Williams are self-described feminists.

Shocking that the only people actually researching this are feminists!

The other side of the coin is represented by neuroscientists trying to prove that the ladybrain is inferior at mathematics or evolutionary psychologists trying to assert that evolution has made women excel at caregiving and men at being hyperlogical.

What you do is called "whataboutism" [1] as the scientific value (or otherwise) of evolutionary psychology doesn't affect the lack of methodological self-awareness of Hall, Phillips and Williams, in particular the complete absence of reflection on their own confirmation bias.

    the only people actually researching this

They are not the only people researching this, but in the current political climate, any alternative research is unlikely to get funded.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I just mentioned entire fields that are funded doing research that suggests the alternative. What you're doing is selectively ignoring the implications of cross-disciplinary research.

There are enough camps/programs targeted at young girls, that's not the problem.

There is no institutional conspiracy to suppress women, the problem is strictly cultural:

NONE of my daughter's female friends in high school thought it was cool to take on any of the math/physics/programming classes. They were all interested in environment, film/acting, fashion, literature...

This self-selection came predominantly from mass-media/pop-culture, and also, to some extent, from their mothers, none of whom works in tech (we are talking a wealthy suburb in the northeast US here). They never encouraged their daughters to go into tech. The fathers did, but not too convincingly, either.

> NONE of my daughter's female friends in high school thought it was cool to take on any of the math/physics/programming classes. They were all interested in environment, film/acting, fashion, literature (my daughter got interested into life sciences)

Popular culture in the US massively lionizes professional sports, and shames younger people who are into programming and other non-social hobbies like nobody's business.

In my opinion, if "women in tech" programs put half of their resources into solving these problems, they'd be hugely more successful. Unfortunately, that involves taking on fields other than professional programming (like television, media, and such), which they are either not ready or equipped to do.

> NONE of my daughter's female friends in high school thought it was cool to take on any of the math/physics/programming classes.

Neither did any of the men. Not when I was in school, and not now. Being nerdy is not cool, whether you're a boy or a girl. In fact, you're more likely to get beaten up for it as a boy than as a girl.

Ummm.... I did (male). I didn't care if it was nerdy.

Not all men in tech are frilly little fancy boys/AP turbogeeks. I'm a high school dropout who rose from the bottom by saving up manual labor wages to attend a community college for two years, then managed to attend my state school for two years thanks to a transfer scholarship and pell grants. I finished the school's cs and math bachelors programs in their entirety in two years by overloading every semester and ruthless scheduling, while also working part-time. That said I support women in tech greatly. My wife is rapidly outpacing men of similar or greater experience levels in her current position because she simply works longer hours, does tons of off-hours self-healing, and focuses on what really matters to the team rather than working on pet projects of little importance. I.e. she is working both harder and smarter. The men in these comments sections need to deadlift

I never said anything about "all" or "most" men. I have no idea why everyone is replying as if I did. Everything I said is super general and is backed up with data.

Good for you for pulling it together. Seriously. I went the service industry to community college route myself.

... generalizations tend to imply all or most as a matter of course. It's why they're generalizations.

She literally didn't even offer commentary on what any/many/all men do whatsoever.

I never mentioned men, but since you decided to make it a point, her generalization is that women are being denied these things. Given that there are two genders, I'll leave it as an exercise as to which one she's referring to when she lists these activities.

Or that they simply don't participate in these things? Nowhere did she say someone stops women from doing those things, just that women don't do them nearly as often as men (which is true).

>Or that they simply don't participate in these things?

one half is not given the opportunity and other half is not participating out of their own will. So what's the point of talking about this at all if no one is doing it at all. Unless your assuption is girls need extra help while boys just get it on their own. Benevolent sexism?

hahaha, I can't believe you actually got "not all men"!

http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/

I too find these HN threads really troubling. I'm very glad to hear you speak up.

"Usually" means "most", because it means "generally," as in "more often than not."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usually https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generally

>I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google.

My original use of "usually". I was talking about women with the "usually", not men. It is a FACT that 82% of the people taking AP computer science are boys. I am arguing that some of this discrepancy is because parents and society nurture this talents in boys, including boys that don't have a lot of natural ability. Which is fine! We need programmers, even mediocre programmers. I am saying nothing against the men who seized these opportunities, nor against the parents who encouraged them.

Read the medium article I linked.

Thanks for the links - I did read them.

Yes, that was part of your original use of "usually." The way you used it in context implied the opposite group experiences the list of things the other group usually doesn't. You communicated that while most women don't do x, y, and z, most men do x, y, and z. My claim is they don't. Yes - of those that do x, y, and z, most are men - but most men still do not do x, y, and z. What percentage of people take AP CS? Most men do not take AP CS (very few men take AP CS in the U.S. or world). Realize the experience you described as common among men isn't most men's experience, and not most people's experience in general. Even if most of the people who had it were men.

Usually can only be used in a comparison, one cannot apply that to just one group independently because the assumption here is that there is out group normal. Correct me if I am wrong, I am not a native English speaker.

You are wrong. Usually means in the majority of cases.

The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.

Can you expand a little more on how your wife works smarter? I'm always looking for ways to improve, so maybe her example could help me. :)

I remember I made the same argument about women in chess (those already playing competitively should be better on average than men because it's harder to get into chess when you are a woman so only the most talented/driven ones make it). I was called sexist in that discussion though as chess is way more meritocratic than corporate career so the implications are that it's likely biological afterall.

>>It's not some feminist conspiracy that women are being promoted

You have to admit though that "diversity" is mentioned a lot and striving for "diversity" in fact makes it easier for women to get into management position. I am not saying it's the only factor but it is one impossible to deny.

My ex husband was career army. While in the military, he double majored in CS and history. He was a socially awkward nerd. He rose though the ranks quickly. He once admitted that while excelled at the technical stuff, the fact that he was married to me was a big part of why he was a decent manager once he got promoted to the military equivalent of mid level manager.

There have been studies that indicate women think of "morality" different from men -- that their idea of morality is more about caring about people. Perhaps the same traits -- caring about others -- that help make women good mothers also help make them good managers. The paternal role is typically different from the maternal one.

My point was that: "we strive for diversity" = discimination against men. Your story is interesting but I don't see how it relates to my point. If women are naturally better managers they would in fact make it more often to managerial positions - I am all for that (as I think genders are different and men are naturally better at some things and women are better at other things and fighting this is not a good idea) but if that's the case we should get rid of all diversity planning and "striving to have more women" as that's tipping the odds even more.

If women are naturally better managers they would in fact make it more often to managerial positions

Not necessarily. You can be really talented and completely overlooked due to discrimination/bias/prejudice. There is plenty of evidence that people expect leaders to be tall, have deep voices, broad shoulders, etc -- ie look and sound like a man. They have studied this.

Others here are suggesting that women get promoted faster in IT because only the best and most dedicated stay. If you are already good and also happen to have traits that are beneficial when assigned managerial tasks, then that could go hand-in-hand.

They may be approaching diversity efforts all wrong. I suspect they are and I do my best to advocate for another path. However, most men who criticize this stuff do not genuinely seem to be interested in a better path forward. They seem to be interested in coming up with some justification for "we should keep advantaging men the way we do now -- that works for me! -- and stop trying to do anything to dismantle the very real barriers women face."

All this focus on women and minorities obscures the issue.

White males can have problems fitting in, too. Being born into a low social class is probably more damning to your future than any external quality you might have.

We need to accept that being inclusive isn't about focusing on a single group - that's singling people out again - but realize that people are being left out of whatever good thing we have as a society for any number of reasons.

Understand this, and just be more accepting of people in general.

Often issues are made into gender/race issues because it drives readership and clicks. It's depressing as we miss the root cause and create more alienation and conflict between people.

e.g. "Women don't ask" - a book with concepts on salary negotiation vital to many men I know.

That said, historically there was clear gender/race discrimination. There is today in pockets, just as there is reverse discrimination.

We just have to stop the discrimination.

We all have different life experiences.

There is a low supply of female engineers, but rather than addressing the problem organizations implement various forms of affirmative action. Trying to fix discrimination with more discrimination.

My partner is in tech. My organization has a network to support women in their careers which my female coworkers view as outright anti-male discrimination.

Unfortunately, the bell curve doesn't support these policies. We have both worked with women who would have not held their position as men.

It's quite frustrating, as we now have capable women forging ahead while less competent women are riding the wave of feminism and tarnishing their reputations.

I'm curious. Have you not suffered this, or at least heard of it?

We can't make progress on this if we all continue to willfully ignore the flaws in our arguments.

What you say rings true.

However, the only thing we really know for sure, and for which there is a mountain of evidence, is that women as a group face significantly greater challenges in this industry than men do. That may filter for various traits in women such as greater levels of grit, but I'm going to wait until this particular survey is corroborated by further study before I buy into the idea that women and men in our industry are significantly differentiated by something like personal drive. I can believe it, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion based on this evidence alone.

Great Medium article by the way.

Excellent observation, and lets not forget it's not valid only in tech. Let's not forget that every boy is encouraged (some would say indoctrinated) from early age to learn the art of cooking, and to spend the evenings preparing dinner (let alone the long-standing sexist attitude - sadly still espoused by many - that men belong in the kitchen). With such an early start it's no wonder that men dominate the field and that only 6 women have managed to earn the prized 3 michelin stars.

>I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science,

Males aren't either. The difference in participation is caused by men engaging in nerdy hobbies more than women (trawling BB boards, playing online video games, etc.). Why this happens, no one really knows.

> It's not some feminist conspiracy that women are being promoted, it's just that the women who go into tech are usually already pretty gritty people.

Interesting that when men statistically seem to have an advantage in any area, it's a "problem" that "needs to be corrected", but if women start to statistically dominate, it's clearly because "women are just better".

It's not that they're better. It's that a woman in tech has to work twice as hard to get the same recognition as men. After working twice as hard, you tend to overshoot and end up becoming way better than the men.

Mediocre women in tech just aren't allowed, whereas mediocre men are accepted. Try to read the article she linked.

Citations needed for pretty much every part of your post.

Again? Read the article that both I and calex suggested you should read.

As a women in tech. I'd like citations too. Because I'm not clear what article you are referring too,and the ones I've read in this thread and the medium article are exceptionally weak.

Poor or even worse bullshit articles and poor citations just make the backlash worse, and even harder to get accepted without having to prove I'm at the least a mythical 2x-5x developer.

Due to the backfire effect[1], no amount of citation convinces the disbelievers. Those who want to believe find the articles by themselves. Those who don't experience backfire effect.

But, here you go, let's try showing you a survey and a study amongst the top Google hits for "women have to work harder for the same recognition" and see what you think:

https://news.virginia.edu/content/surveys-british-and-americ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2013/02/24/superio...

---

[1] http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts...

That's not what I'm really asking for. I live that reality most days. So I believe it fully.

When I discuss these and sometimes any issue really with engineers or scientists, I try to find technical research papers with null hypothesizes and methodology.

My point being for technical people like engineers, you aren't convincing a lot of people with light fluffy pieces without links to hard data, in fact you get them even more entrenched in their current way of thinking because they think you don't have real scientific evidence.

I've found in personal experience, technical people are far more open minded then the general population, but they tolerate far less bullshit.

I have found that people, even technical people, will question any study you send their way if they don't already agree to it. They'll say the sample isn't big enough, that the statistics are flawed, or they'll cite contrary studies.

I don't understand what you're looking for. I don't have juicy information you don't have, so I imagine if there is something out there that you searched and couldn't find, I don't think I'll succeed in finding it either.

I guess that means all that remains is intolerable bullshit?

If we're making generalizations here, then women generally don't like hunching over a computer monitor in isolation for 6+ hours every day. Much like how men generally don't like to put on makeup and act in plays.

The fact that there are way too many IT people from poor immigrant backgrounds (no opportunities for anything you mention) discredits your first point.

> it's GENERALLY because it is something that you very much care about and want to do.

Given that there is a higher demand for IT jobs than supply makes this impossible. You just have to be good at it.

Since when are there "way too many" IT people from poor immigrant backgrounds? As far as I can tell, programmers are more likely to be from the educated middle class.

Based on the undertone of the entire comment, I figure there were "way too many" as soon as n >= 1.

Probably referring to asians(including indians). Outside of silicon valley, you see a lot of asian developers whose families came from poor immigrant families.

My experience with Indian programmers is that they tend to come from the Indian middle class. Middle class in India may be poorer than in the US, but they're still well educated.

indian middle class == american poor. More true in 80-90's when the current crop grew up. Also, its kind of funny to be called 'middle class' in the third poorest country in the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com