Comment by geebee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by geebee | Hacker News Reader

I read through the responses. It appears all disagree with Stuart Reges. The first few responses disagree, a couple toward the end go farther and discuss the harm that occurs when someone expresses this opinion. One essay does insinuate that perhaps he should lose his leadership position for expressing this opinion.

I read all these responses with interest. The only strong opinion I hold is that we should accurately represent the thesis that we are discussing, even if it means we need to use more words to describe it. Mr. Regis didn't argue that women don't pursue computer science. He didn't say that it surprises him when some of the top computer scientists are women, he didn't say it surprises him when a woman has great interest in computer science. He made a ratio argument - that he believes that about 20% of the top computer science students and scholars will be women.

The sad thing is, I believe there's plenty to discuss, argue, even rightly object to in that thesis. But we must not claim that he said women can't be, or won't be computer scientists. He said the opposite - that some of the top computer scientists will and should be women. If someone believes that 20% of the elite computer scientists will be women, does that mean a woman in a class should worry that this professor doubts her competence or commitment?

This isn't a purely rhetorical question. If you deeply believe the main reason that women are less represented in computer science is because women ace powerful social deterrents, and that in the absence of these deterrents the percentage of women in CS would rise dramatically (far above 20%), then it could follow that a professor who openly states that 20%/80% represents the natural equilibrium must only be a professor who fails to see the issues that women face - and that this disqualifies him from a leadership position in a top computer science department.

It is frustrating how often misrepresentation occurs in this particular topic. So many words are wasted misrepresenting the record and then setting it straight again.

A similar thing happened w/ the Google Memo when so many prominent media outlets (as well as commenters all over the Internet, including here at HN) attacked it for saying things it never said before the accusation was changed to "well, it was based on bad science". By the time it got to that point, the conversation sort of dissipated, and I didn't get to hear much debate about the science.

I don't have an opinion in either case, but it does seem like one side is consistently doing the misrepresenting. And it leaves me (a more-or-less neutral observer), suspicious: after all, why would you resort to misrepresentation if you're confident in your position?

Why is this (and children) being down-voted? These seem like perfectly rationale comments on the topic.

Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvoting. As they say, it does no good and makes boring reading. And once the unfairly downvoted comment has been corrected by other users, your comment lingers on inaccurately.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18087888

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

They aren't only misrepresenting Reges in these essays. Some of the things these women finger as "holding them back" are actually (fairly predictable) problems with their own behaviour. I see no rational argument for why men should take the blame.

Consider this passage from the second essay, which seeks to school men on how to avoid discouraging women:

In my case, my college adviser assumed I’d be going to medical school and did not guide me toward the courses I’d need in computer science. During my senior year, when he discovered his assumption was wrong, there was little time left to fill in the blanks in my education. It is easy to assume the wrong thing about someone, and this is where implicit bias can creep in. It is far better simply to ask.

The implicit assumption in this paragraph is eye watering: she appears to believe it was up to her advisor to telepathically figure out that she was not in fact interested in medical school, and would prefer computer science, without her ever telling him that. In Mankoff's world view it wasn't up to her say, actually I want to do computing, could you steer me towards courses I'll need for that that please? Rather it was up to him to "discover" that his "assumption" was wrong.

But she took the courses the advisor recommended, so, apparently his assumptions weren't so wrong. She agreed with his advice after all. There's clearly some misrepresentation of the poor advisor going on here: he didn't pull medical school out of thin air, she must have indicated a bit of interest, then she changed her mind and has re-interpreted her own life story to make her own indecisiveness the man's fault instead of her own.

A "blame men" attitude seems rampant in such stories. There are two anecdotes about someone else trying to take credit for their work. Instead of blaming human nature and recognising everyone suffers this they make it about men vs women. Pratt says men interrupt her in meetings. Guess what, men interrupt each other in meetings all the time. That isn't sexism. It's how men talk sometimes. Interrupt them back, perhaps.

The third essay is pure ad hominem insults and trash - anyone who disagrees with Julie Letchner is a "mole" who needs "whacking", by which she means Reges should lose his job. It's deeply unfortunate that women like Letchner claim to speak on behalf of all women and apparently meet no resistance. Where are all the women standing up for Reges and his right to explore these issues? Not a single essay is supportive of him. Perhaps that's deliberate by the Seattle Times.

The essay by Pratt reveals she's got another problem that she probably can't recognise:

Last year, I asked my students to describe why they think women are underrepresented in STEM fields.

Isn't she supposed to be teaching computer science? This question is asking the student's opinions. There is no right answer to such a question. But she doesn't see that ...

I was dumbfounded that students would put their names on such statements and submit them to me — a woman grading their responses.

... and we can assume proceeded to downgrade everyone who submitted the "wrong" i.e. non feminist answers, whilst marvelling at their stupidity in assuming their female professor might actually be neutral or fair. Yes, how foolish of those students to submit their real opinions instead of flattering their professor's political biases. If she's spending her time on this sort of "teaching" it might explain why she gets paid less than her male peers, who presumably don't.

The answers were not focused on Dr. Stuart Reges, but on women in computer science. I think it misrepresents the answers and is a distraction (a common one in these discussions) to turn the focus to him, as somehow persecuted, and away from the issue: the access women have to computer science - and the access computer science has to the talent and hard work of half the population.

The post is literally a collection of responses to Dr. Reges, and it’s the misinformation—not the correction thereof—which distracts from the conversation about the access women have to CS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com