Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway399 | Hacker News Reader

The nature of the work in all of these fields is different. My point is that women are not less qualified, but just less interested in a career of doing the kind of work software engineers do. It is very very different from applied math and statistics.

Neuro/molecular/chem ~= biology and is similar to each other for the most part.

women are underrepresented in almost all major engineering fields. It's not like the math there is harder than pure maths or that it's more challenging. Just different.

stats is its own beast. Accounting is very different from computers-related fields or biology for example. Statistics classes are also pretty much evenly balanced.

pure math is also very different from everything else. It might be in some cases similar to theoretical CS/applied math but to get to theoretical CS most people have to go through undergrad CS classes that paint a completely different picture of what that work is like.

View on HN

There was no set of comparable fields I could give where you wouldn't be able to provide some kind of distinction as if it was determinative, but at some point the argument gets so finicky that it becomes tautological. Science, but nothing biological, even if it requires organic chem and computational models. And not astronomy. Only physics, even though only a tiny minority of CS practitioners have physics training. Math, sure, but not abstract maths, or statistics, even though stat is the most important math for programming.

One suspects that if there was some subfield of programming, like distributed systems, that had 45/65 female/male, there'd be an elaborate justification for how that programming discipline was so different from the rest of programming that any comparisons to it were invalid (and, in fact, I've noticed at academic crypto conferences that women are much more common than in the rest of CS, so maybe that's an example).

Again, this is what it means for an argument to be a special pleading: we're required to accept an obstacle course of criterion that ignores the simplest, most plausible comparisons.

Do you believe the following statements are true?

1) Men & women have differently structured brains.

2) Different brains result in different behaviour.

> Again, this is what it means for an argument to be a special pleading: we're required to accept an obstacle course of criterion that ignores the simplest, most plausible comparisons.

On the contrary, if you look at lists of the representation gap between professions, computer programmers fit right into their surroundings. It requires special pleading to explain why programming is systematically discriminating against women, and not civil engineers, sound technicians, chemical engineers, industrial engineers, mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, professionally active mathematicians, chemical engineers etc...

Something like 35% of mathematics PhDs produced annually are women, and that number is increasing --- it's up from 32% a few years ago. And math is one of the more male-dominated STEM fields.

Computer science, physics, and engineering are the three male bastions of STEM. Nothing else in STEM compares. Moreover, the rest of STEM is significantly and increasingly dependent on computer science, so a very large number of practicing scientists in non-CS, non-engineering fields are spending much of their working time programming computers. Somehow, we've led ourselves to believe that plugging form fields into database columns is serious men's only business, but working with computational models of molecular biology isn't.

It would not challenge my intuitions to find that women in STEM are doing more significant CS work than the overwhelming majority of professional computer programmers.

> It would not challenge my intuitions to find that women in STEM are doing more significant CS work than the overwhelming majority of professional computer programmers.

I would tend to agree. I think that women are not interested in staring at a computer screen and making CRUD apps all day, they do something more interesting or rewarding that require technical skills. That is, the lower aptitude men stick it out, while the lower aptitude women quit and become nurses or whatever. It's just a theory, but plausible right? You seem stuck on a false choice between it there being some simple super-cause or else sexism. It's probably a bunch of things. I mean why else would the most gener-equal societies show the most segregation between professions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com