Hacker News Reader

Comment by proc0 | Hacker News Reader

Why do we care that there are equal women and men again? Why does representation actually matter again? I would find it more exciting to see a field with no representation because I could make a greater impact! This whole ideology of having representation everywhere is very dumb and conformist.

View on HN

Because diverse opinions lead to better end products. Having homogenized groups of people means you're leaving some viewpoints out, and those viewpoints have sometimes been extremely helpful for me as a software developer.

Sure, however this isn't false otherwise. Non-diverse opinions aren't bad by default, and ultimately the main concern here is thinking the opposite, that diverse opinions are always right.

It's an error to assume any opinion is always right. Ultimately institutional sex discrimination is counter-productive to human life, so you will generally see a higher quality of life, lower violence, better health outcomes, reduced chemical toxicity, in places where both sexes have equal social mobility.

Maybe (although it's hard to imagine how somebody's non-education related upbringing could lead them to optimize software, for example), but at what cost? The linked article is suggesting that it's going to cost billions of dollars (more!) to bring in these diverse opinions.

Yes I've observed that it's useful to have people like physicists or electrical engineers in a software development team, because they have a different perspective on things.

Below this is a comment that is now "dead" and cannot be replied to.

To moderators/downvoters: It is said that defending a cause with bad arguments is the most pernicious way to combat it. Similarly, resorting to authority and censorship to defend a cause must be the surest way to ruin it.

We have seen sexism actually grow in the last decades in this field, and i start to worry that this attitude of dealing with it with the argument of authority or other threats on one's carrier may just be one of the causes that we are slowly losing this ideological battle. Or maybe just a symptom?

'Equal opportunity' I think is a fairly non-controversial concept, much less so than 'equal outcomes'.

To the extent there are factors which systematically work against opportunity, there's both a moral issue, and a pragmatic issue (i.e. losing good talent) at play, before we get into the more controversial issues of representation and equality of outcomes.

proc0 has a point: the more people you filter out for irrelevant reasons, the more is left for the mediocre who can pass the filters.

Because women have a right to the same opportunities as the other 50% of the population.

Yes, but you don't see many, if any, complaints about under-represented saturation divers.

So what?

Because countries where women are dominated by men both legally and culturally, have higher rates of birth, crime, poverty, etc., than countries where women have a level of social mobility similar to men.

Actually, no, it’s the other way around - in less egalitarian countries, women are more likely to pursue science and technical careers.

I find it shocking that people so boldly cite the opposite as being true. I can't seem to discern a benefit to so confidently push a belief that doesn't hold up in reality. It's not as if the Nordic countries aren't doing pretty well, so why are people so resistant to the reality?

It's perfectly understandable that less economic and social pressures lead to people choosing things they actually want. It just happens to be that there's a notable difference in women's choices under those circumstances.

It certainly seems like there's substantial misinformation out there these days.

For the women I know, working at a sausagefest like comp/sci or engineering can be really unpleasant, and I'm sure it sucks 10x for women who believe they have to work STEM in order to gain the autonomy they need. My sister lived two years in an all male house with two male landlords and she almost lost her damn mind: the landlords kept trying to set her up with her creepy neighbor, who himself was trading sexual favors with the landlords in order to get out of cleaning, which my sister did more than anybody. The landlords were always giving special treats and priveleges to "their boys", even the ones who didnt pay rent on time. Obviously, #notallmen, obviously. It is unsurprising to me that the biggest female STEM recruitment is happening in places where women have no other way to get the autonomy they need.

When women have equal opportunity for education and employment, that mobility is correlated with reduced population growth, reduction in violence, better health outcomes. I don't actually care how likely women are to pursue stem careers, or about mathematical diverseness. I am primarily interested in drinkable water, breathable air, edible food, peace, etc. Evidence suggests that sexist gatekeeping ultimately runs counter to my own interests.

Current patriarchal, near-totalitarian societies have huge percentages of women going into STEM because for an ambitious, smart, strong woman in that environment it's one of the few paths to independence and status obtained through a well paying STEM job.

Countries that are more egalitarian and have more social mobility have STEM percentages that are decreasing as the same society becomes more egalitarian over time because the women have other options, and they choose to take them.

I am uninterested in the actual composition of STEM. I want social mobility for women because such is correlated with population growth reduction, better health and social outcomes.

Birth control research would love to have a talk with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com