Hacker News Reader

Comment by hahan | Hacker News Reader

Call me cynical but I found it amusing that no one points out the fact that engineering work is laborious and dry to say the least for most people. That's the reason why there are so few people who have other options, females, upper middle class people, people of means, in the scene. There are so many lowish paid low status unsought for sectors where majority workers are male, say janitors in Universities, why I never see any discussions on that bias ?

View on HN

You're saying that software engineers are in the role because they have no other option? No upper-middle-class people in the position? What are you talking about?

You're missing the point anyway. The article made it pretty clear that this AI amplified biases humans already have about women applicants to tech positions. Stating your own biases about women make no sense to the topic, or to the argument you seem to be trying to make.

Janitors are worth talking about as well (women in the same job usually have a different title with less authority and less pay), but high-status, highly-paid, highly influential jobs are where it's most important to avoid bias, and so we talk about those more.

You're saying that software engineers are in the role because they have no other option? No upper-middle-class people in the position? What are you talking about?

There are enthusiastic people who start with enthusiasm and can keep that enthusiasm. Most begin with practical concerns. And most of those who don't begin with stay with. he

And yes, rich people, upper echelon, people of means are rare in the industry

And of you think programming is high status, high paying, highly influential, why we import immigrants to do that ? You think the talent pool of some hundred million American people with most entensive education system is insufficient ?

Because, though logical, it's a highly unpopular thing to discuss. Narrative has replaced critical thinking in many areas, this being one.

Cynical, or wrong? There's a clear history of women in software engineering when it was considered a low-class low-skill job. The first "programmers" in the modern sense of the word were women at NASA. The lead software developer for Apollo 11 was a woman. There's so much evidence to suggest that there is far more at play here than simply "engineering is laborious and dry [so women must not want to do the work]" that I'm willing to state it falls under wikipedia's citing rules for globally known knowledge: I don't need to cite that the capital of France is Paris any more than I need to cite this.

This is the same line of already-refuted reasoning behind the "I'm just asking questions" in the infamous Google Memo.

To answer my original, rhetorical, question: It's not cynical. It's wrong.

> There's so much evidence to suggest that there is far more at play here than simply "engineering is laborious and dry [so women must not want to do the work]" that I'm willing to state it falls under wikipedia's citing rules for globally known knowledge: I don't need to cite that the capital of France is Paris any more than I need to cite this.

What about citations proving that "software engineering when it was considered a low-class low-skill job" is the same profession as the programming in the past 30years. Or at least that it has the same difficulty / processes.

Btw usage of phrases like "clear history", "so much evidence" (especially when you cite one(!) arguable data point), "already-refuted" does not convince anyone about you being right. It is at best annoying.

What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring? I am under no obligation to engage a comment made in bad faith as if it wasn’t.

> What about citations proving that programming is dry, tedious, or boring?

From what I've seen this is standard assumption by ordinary people. And it does not target only programming, any office job that involves "sitting at the computer all day" gets that reputation.

And that easily could have not been the case in the 50's (I really don't know). And the profession has clearly evolved (anecdotally: many think it has gotten worse). So your assumptions are really not that obvious. Sorry if that comes accross to you as "arguing in bad faith".

That's a fine assumption to be made by ordinary people but I think it's quite fair to respond to somebody commenting on hacker news as if they have more than a lay-person's understanding the technology industry.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? You're not engaging with my points in any meaningful way. Can we be done with this thread?

Yeah, talk about arguing in bad faith, then move the goal posts (when lay people think the job is too hard / boring, they will not choose it when choosing education, seems pretty obvious?) and claim the other side is "arguing for the sake of arguing".

You are not engaging in debate in any meaningful way, maybe stop arguing on HN? You are not convincing anyone . . .

While I agree with the early days female programmers history thing, I'd like to point one thing you've neglected, that programming work 60 yrs ago is not comparable or even relevant to that of today. They are of different nature. What's farther from the reality is , back those days programming was not particularly losing paying or low status, I'd say it was elite. After all, most people then had no access to tertiary education, let alone computers.

I agree that programming is very different today than it was in the 50s and 60s but I absolutely disagree that it was high paying or elite. Programming was considered a step above secretarial work[0] and women were actively encouraged to enter the field because they were “naturally suited to planning”.

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmi...

You don't see discussion on that because you're on a tech industry website, not a janitorial forum. And the percentage of women in janitorial work is nearly twice that as the percentage in tech per BLS: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com