Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmyk | Hacker News Reader

It seems that you are offended by some of his ideas. If this is the case, you will not give any of them the consideration they deserve. Perhaps this is his fault but it is not easy to write about touchy subjects in a way that will be non-offensive. As it happens, his ideas are well in line with expert opinions on the topic of moral development from infancy to adulthood and deserve to be considered in a more candid manner.

The statement you made about what he was implying demonstrated what I mean. You're offended by what he wrote, so you are trying to find things to object to. He never said it was impossible for a woman to be a good mommy and an astronaut. He said that women would tend towards being good mommies.

View on HN

I appreciate the point you are trying to make however @HilbertSpace did say that it's impossible for a woman to be successful at both motherhood and a career:

With feminism, some girls believed "Women can and do things, too", charged into male careers, and paid a very high price in lack of children, busted marriages, and sometimes even their lives. It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature.

Further, what on earth are you talking about when you say that his post is in line with expert opinions on the subject?

A few random quotes...

It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. To get girls to major in computer science, you are dealing with forces you cannot possibly understand.

Having women pursuing computer careers will stick like water on a duck's back -- not a chance.

There can be a reason for a girl in college to take some courses in computer science: Look for a husband!

I am all for a balanced discussion but seriously, is this not a little nutty?

As I said and Hilbert said in other places, this is about trends and tendencies. Not specific cases. As this discussion is about why women don't pursue careers in computer science as often as men, it is appropriate to speak in generalities.

The quotes you're picking sound bad, but they're not.

"There can be a reason for a girl in college to take some courses in computer science: Look for a husband!"

He's not saying the only reason any girl should ever take computer science classes is to find a husband. He's saying that a girl following typical gender roles will actually use that reason as opposed to the other good reasons for doing so.

"Further, what on earth are you talking about when you say that his post is in line with expert opinions on the subject?"

Look into the subject of moral development. There are conflicting views on the subject, but at least one of the views (promoted by Carol Gilligan) is very similar to what Hilbert has been saying.

Absolutely not. He pretends that women tend towards being good mommies because of some ridiculously over-simplistic "natural impulse" or similar crap. This approach is altogether stupid, complacent and wrong.

1° generally human behaviour can't be described as simply as bacteria behaviour in a petri dish.

2° there is a general trend recently in using some pseudo-scientific discourse as a comfortable vehicle to shocking ideas, basically pretending there is some science behind the differences between men/women, blacks/whites, etc. This is UTTER BULLSHIT. There is NOT the slightest fucking speckle of science backing this.

3° there is a more profound philosophical error that is trying to justify a scandalous state of matters because "nature makes it this way". Let me tell you one thing, nature sucks. Living in the "good ol' natural way" is being eaten alive by wolves and dying young, and painfully with that. Nature is a very bad excuse; everything that civilisation is about is precisely doing things in unnatural ways because you know, nature is nice as long as you aren't really part of it.

1: This is a social science, not a hard science.

2: Your ignorance of the science does not invalidate its existence. As an example of research that has been done, look up some of the works of Carol Gilligan. There are many others, but it's not my field.

3. And here you are promoting ignorance. Yes, nature is bad, but if you want to change it, you must understand it. If you have no understanding of why women are less likely to go to computer science, have fun solving the problem.

1. indeed. And he repeatedly babbles with authority.

2. I've seen some science on these subjects. Unfortunately it always was heavily politically connoted, and the data was terrible ( no, it's not statistically valid to draw a linear regression from a vague random looking cloud of points).

3. I'm not promoting ignorance; I'm getting sick of right-wing morons, be it the anti-science style of the social darwinist style.

You are missing it, failing to 'get it', running off in unnecessary directions, and flailing away at irrelevancies.

It's simple, dirt simple: Here the shortest clear explanation: "The hand the rocks the cradle rules the world.".

If you don't like that one, take all the woman in the US at, say, 18. Put each woman into either (A) REALLY wants to have children and be a good mommy and is concentrating on finding a suitable husband and (B) women with less overt interest in being a mommy.

Then, track (A) and (B) over a few generations and see what happens. Is there any doubt in your mind? The women in (A) will have the strong limbs on the tree, and the women in (B) will have weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. Then over time, the fraction of women in (A) will increase, and the fraction of women in (B) will decrease. In particular, genes that put women into (A) will increase.

Just what is it about this 'thought experiment' you find difficult to understand?

Here is what should be your first question:

Q. If this thought experiment is correct, then why do we have any women in (B) now?

A. I should leave the answer as an exercise. Here's one piece of historical evidence: Supposedly in year 1800 could take all the women in the US of Western European descent, track their descendants, and by year 1850 discover that their population (of say, just the women) had increased by a factor of four. We're talking 50 years with nearly all the women pregnant nearly all the time.

So, (A) or (B) didn't matter: Due to very strong social, economic, and practical pressures, the women got married, and then the babies 'just came'.

Since then, more and more, (A) and (B) mattered a LOT. So, now women in (B) have the option of concentrating less on motherhood and do and, thus, are pulling their genes out of the gene pool. In a few more generations, what stands to be left is women in (A).

The effect of (B) is already strong and easy to see: In the more industrialized countries, women of Western European descent are having way less than 2.1 children per woman and, thus, are dying out. So, as women in (B) die out, the population can continue to shrink. When about all that is left is women in (A), then the population will stand to increase again. Come back in 100 years and find a LOT of REALLY eager women in (A)!

Your next question should be:

Q. But women in (B) should have reproductive advantage because of their better ability to contribute to the economic strength of the home.

A. Good point, but so far it's not working. I suspect that somehow it won't work well enough before the women in (B) die out.

Complicated it's NOT.

Don't bother, the main premise of Idiocracy is true, and we're doomed anyway, because it obeys exactly the same logic as you do.

The demographic transition has been observed in many different races and cultures, as parents deliberately have fewer children as their confidence increases in the survival of those children (and the parents' own subsistence in old age). If wanting more babies were a heritable biological drive, we wouldn't see whole societies ignoring it immediately after it became economically rational to do so. Instead evolution took the easy way out and created drives for sex and for nurturing babies, because those are immediate experiences an animal can respond to. We've given contraception a bunch of cultural baggage, but there is no drive against using it any more than there is a drive against overeating processed sugar, because neither existed in the environment that shaped us.

You mention several good points, but, net, you miss it. The most serious place you get off the track is with your "If wanting more babies were a heritable biological drive, we wouldn't see whole societies ignoring it immediately after it became economically rational to do so."

No: There is "a heritable biological drive". But as I explained elsewhere on this thread, e.g., for the US population increase from 1800 to 1850, that "drive" long didn't play much role. Now with contraception, etc., that "drive" is crucial. Or, the lack of that drive, with contraception, etc., is now the reason for the fall in the birth rate.

It's dirt simple: Now with contraception, more career opportunities for women, etc., women without that "drive" will be pulling their genes out of the gene pool. So, come back in a few generations and find what? Sure: Find what's left, find nearly all women who DO have just that "drive".

You seem to doubt that the "drive" can exist and be from genes: Don't doubt! It's in the gene pool now: A significant fraction of women see the face of a baby and know right away, front and center, that they want BABIES. Then they go looking for a suitable husband. In particular they don't go looking for K&R on C.

Look, it's even simpler: It's really easy for girls from 2 on to really love their dolls and like to play 'mommy'. Don't doubt that most of this is just in the genes.

I've been trying to stay out of this. I'm a woman, and a former homemaker/homeschooling mom. I originally wanted three kids but stopped at two, largely for health reasons but also for other reasons. I have an older sister who had serious fertility problems. She went through fertility treatments on and off over 8 years with two different husbands, which is considered to be a rather tough case (often just changing partners resolves the problem). In contrast, I seemed to get pregnant at the drop of a hat. I've done a lot of reading on women's issues and thinking on topics like this because the truth is I never planned on being a full-time parent for so long. I wanted to be home while my kids were little and then go pursue a career. But I had undiagnosed health issues, special needs kids and a military spouse, so I had a lot of obstacles to pursuing a career.

I have noticed patterns like: A career military wife has two kids, they both start school, she is still in no position to pursue a real career and is basically bored and lonely. So she has a third child to fill that empty void, because it is the only real viable option that satisfies her needs to be occupied and feel useful/valued and also fits into her current life -- which she can't conveniently dismantle or walk away from. If there weren't enormous obstacles to her pursuing a real career at that point, she might have done that instead.

I don't think the divergence of two types or groups of women has anything to do with "some women really want kids and some don't". I think it has a lot more to do with "some situations, once you get into them, are incredibly difficult to get out of". This cuts both ways: Not only is it very challenging to try to establish and pursue a career (as opposed to just getting a job) once you've had kids, it is also very hard to try to fit in kids once you've established a real career. Women who strongly want both and get adequate support for doing that tend to end up in "pink collar" jobs, thus in most cases really aren't on the same footing with the typical male career. I don't think this involves any male conspiracy to oppress women or any female ambitions to be supermoms. I think it is rooted in the simple fact that a serious career and a child are both similarly demanding obligations which you cannot simply and easily walk away from, limit the demands made on you and so forth -- so they compete for your time, energy and other resources in a way that makes it difficult to do both. For some people it is harder than others. If we can find a cultural means to resolve or ameliorate this fundamental conflict, then you will see fewer women choosing one or the other.

I found this story and perspective very interesting but everyone discussing this subject with Hilbert is severely mistaken if they think they'll dissuade him from his unpopular beliefs with anecdote and musings.

Sadly, your story is not one that is going to be heard often in HN (wrong demographic entirely), but it still falls under the scope of anecdote.

I think what you're pushing is a more deterministically oriented perspective in terms of where women find themselves in their lives.

I don't think that's necessarily going to be much more popular than Hilbert's biologically deterministic tendencies -> choice flip.

You'll need to take a different approach in advancing this argument, although the lack of misandry is certainly appreciated.

A gentle note: countries that have state funded childcare and that otherwise compensate for the burden of child-rearing have even higher part-time and pink collar employment rates for women than countries that do less to provide for women and children.

Your point, I'm afraid, doesn't have fact on its side.

everyone discussing this subject with Hilbert is severely mistaken if they think they'll dissuade him

That's a big part of why I was trying to stay out of it. Call it a moment of weakness that I bothered to reply at all.

I am 45. In my twenties, I read quite a lot of books on women's issues and some comparisons between the US and some European countries (many of the titles are lost to the mists of time) and the general understanding I developed was that countries that provided better support for maternity leave and childrearing (and had lower divorce rates) had made more progress than America in closing the wage gap. Those statistics are out of date by at least two decades, but I think the general concept has probably not staled in the least.

I don't think I am pushing anything deterministic. I am saying it is tough to change gears once you go far enough down a certain path. But it can be done and understanding what is going on can help in that regard. (EDIT: Also, understanding that this is an issue can potentially help reshape society so that it isn't so much of a "one or the other" kind of choice.) I got divorced and now work full time. After having been a homemaker in a very "traditional" (throw back to the 50's) marriage, I did some gender roll reversal with my sons: When push came to shove financially, I encouraged them to learn to cook and take over more of the housework so I could work more overtime instead of encouraging them to get jobs.

I did this for a number of reasons, but one of them was I did not wish to remain the household "domestic slave" and it was clear to me that if we all had jobs, the majority of the housework would continue to fall to me -- not because they are male and I am female, but because I am the one who already knew how to do it. They are well aware of my views that a lot of stereotypical gender roll stuff is rooted in situational factors, not in our genes or physiology, and they were well aware of my various motives. It was better overall for the family than other options available to us and they went along happily. Since my "theories" are yielding real world results for me and my family, I feel confident they aren't simply hot air or delusions (though I also have no fantasies that I know 'everything' either).

Anyway, long day and continuing to comment on a topic I should probably stay out of most of the time. It would be far better for me to turn my thoughts into a blog so I can explain my views, at my leisure and and at length, instead of "arguing" it in a male dominated forum.

Peace.

>I developed was that countries that provided better support for maternity leave and childrearing (and had lower divorce rates) had made more progress than America in closing the wage gap.

Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Definitely not categorically and it depended on the endemic culture.

No, it enabled them to have a better quality of life and less work than compared to the US. It also enabled them to have a more secure means of raising a family without having to work full-time.

Being a homemaker in the US is a rather fantastic risk to take, especially if you're a stay-at-home Dad as the courts won't favor a wealth transfer as much.

I consider the improvement of security for those that want to raise a family without requiring massive individual wealth transfers like the US to be valuable benefits. That said, I find it amusing that some think people somehow have some kind of universal goal to play the career game. Not everybody cares.

It wasn't until recently that most feminist writers stopped being so fixated on career development. (Seemingly, anyway. I'm no historian of gender politics.)

> I did not wish to remain the household "domestic slave"

More power to you, glad you made the kids learn how to better care for themselves. My parents did that with me partially out of necessity and partially out of laziness but it did wonders for my independence.

Saved my ass later in life.

I'm sure your kids are better for it.

Can't say the domestic slave wording is exactly necessary or appealing. Would you describe a stay-at-home Dad as a domestic slave? That's extremely offensive.

>It would be far better for me to turn my thoughts into a blog so I can explain my views, at my leisure and and at length, instead of "arguing" it in a male dominated forum.

I agree with the first part, but I'm going to have to tut tut you for making excuses. I called you out on a common fallacy.

You're going to need to suck it up if you want to debate such violently contentious issues on the internet, and I guarantee you having a 100% female presence would do nothing to make it less...whatever it is you're complaining about.

I'm not even arguing with you, I'm just refuting a fallacy and pointing out a wrinkle.

These are some of the more educated, open-minded, and liberal (I'm using this in the broader sense) people you're ever going to find on the internet. If you find this community unpleasant you're in for a hell of a shock if you start really plumbing the Internet for the depths of mediocrity.

Re: getting my sons to do more housework: One of my explicit goals was to make sure they can care for themselves. My oldest son has the same medical condition I have. We have gotten off all the drugs and stuff and gotten well by eating better, keeping the house stringently clean, etc. He literally could die if he moved out (or I died) and he didn't know how to care for himself.

Re: "domestic slave" -- seems to me like good shorthand. You knew pretty clearly what I meant -- someone really unfairly bogged down with uncompensated labor -- without a lot of elaborating, offended or not.

Re: Female audience. That's a laugh. Women seem to find me far more intimidating and offensive than men do.

Re: Arguing: That has two meanings, one of which is to debate it and the other is to fight about it. I don't mind a debate though my experience is that most folks on the internet don't really do that. They pretty quickly deteriorate into fighting.

Nor am I making excuses. I have pushed the envelope on topics like this many, many times in male dominated forums. I have a fairly good idea of how hard it is do this kind of thing and that one of the big issues is the framing and underlying assumptions of what other people say. It very, very frequently becomes "If you don't agree it's black, then you must be one of those psychos that think it's white. And that is so amazingly obviously wrong that you must be a retard." There is no room for discussing shades of grey, much less a more technicolor version of reality. If I don't agree 100% with their assertion it's black, they peg me as one of those "100% white" folks. I get routinely slammed as being someone who strongly holds the "opposite" view for attempting to say "I don't see it that way". It really matters very little what the topic is -- politics, gender issues, homeschooling, you name it. If I say I homeschooled my kids, I must be one of those folks who wants to dismantle public school. If I say I don't think the anti-vax crowd is completely crazy, someone inevitably asks me what made me choose to not vaccinate my kids at all (which is a fallacious assumption and real example from this very forum). And on and on. So a public forum is a quite difficult place to try to articulate a view that is substantially different from the "standard positions" everyone is familiar with. All attempts to side step the repeated efforts of other people to peg me as this, that, or the other makes it incredibly difficult or downright impossible to convey how I really see it. Thus a blog would be a better option, and not out of cowardice.

As it happens, "as it happens" is a way to lead into an assertion that tends to provoke casual acceptance. It's not all that different from "wouldn't you agree that", a mock-question that's often accompanied by a nodding motion; the combination frequently illicits a nod even from someone that disagrees.

Of course many of the commenters are offended by some of the ideas expressed here; that doesn't make the ideas more correct. It's not a question of finding things to disagree with, because inherently the commenters' shortcoming isn't that they are hoping to reveal a logical flaw in the argument, but that they were tricked into debating a troll in the first place.

Wouldn't you agree that people with outmoded or poorly researched ideals can do a lot more damage if they are clever enough to embed their ideas in layers of empirical-sounding academia-speak?

I'd take it a step further, but I don't want to be "that guy" who invokes Godwin's law. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com