Hacker News Reader

Well said. If I had read something like this when I was eight years old, I probably would have almost immediately backtracked and started looking for something else to do with my life. The author could instead tell her niece that being a game developer sounds like fun, and then help her deal with any discrimination as it comes up, if it comes up at all. But to start off a person's career with the message that she is going to be discriminated against, that she is going to be at a disadvantage, that she should watch out for all those people trying to drag her down... that's just sabotage.

Sabotage is the right word. Also, it's a syllogistic fallacy, right?

If you asked 100 people if they perceived some disadvantage about themselves that impedes progress to their life goals, you would get 100 answers. And yet somehow there are 7bn of us, we build skyscrapers and send robots to Mars. Personally, I've had my fill of "if it bleeds, it leads."

This letter was not written for an eight-year-old. The real eight-year-old is used as an angle to garner sympathy from us, the intended audience, but the hypothetical eight-year-old is a MacGuffin.

Yes, I would hope that the author wouldn't include "sausage party" in a letter to her real niece. :) So let me rephrase: I don't see the point in making broad statements about the presence of discrimination in our field, because these statements will drive away people who might have had perfectly satisfying careers in tech completely unhampered by discrimination. In my experience, constantly being made aware of the gender imbalance has been much more damaging than any actual gender discrimination. (Though of course I'm sure many other members of underrepresented groups have not been as lucky.)

I disagree that this type of article is merely an attempt to introduce negative engagement. Highlighting the problem so that we have this discussion is always important.

You may "let it go," as you say. That's fine. However, why do you expect others to also let it go? The point of this post to me is that if we don't take action or responsibility, the daughters of today will grow to write these posts themselves someday. It won't change unless we are honest and we put forth the effort to understand the environment and circumstance that leads us to write these articles. And we have, what, one of these posts a month? Can we really ignore them... and keep ignoring them?

As a teacher, I admit that I don't share your ability to let others' circumstances not own any part of me. I do notice how these issues affect the women who chose to take my intro to programming course, or affect the lack, as it were. You just have to be active and look and ask for their experiences. When they come into office hours and ask questions they could have asked in class; I ask them why they didn't and more than one has answered "because I am shy."

Could they all be shy? That's certainly an explanation. I could look the other way from then on and comment how odd it is that women are so shy. Can I rely on this being a biological answer? Are women, as opposed to men, then just not interested in tech? Can I be satisfied? Maybe most are good stopping right there. But the anecdote alone fails to placate my understanding. And yet, if I look, I find evidence of something... more... problematic.

So, studies were done. Are women worse than men at math keeping them out of tech? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724192258.ht... No. Are they less interested? Well, Sapna Cheryan's study of the stereotype threat in computer science is profound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYwI-qM20x4 So, their interest is very likely to be prejudiced. So, it seems the correlation is weak. Is there a systemic bias that goes against women? http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract Apparently, yes. And I have a handful more that show this. Which is why I anonymize the homework I grade and why conference/journal review should be blind (http://blog.davewilkinsonii.com/posts/conference_diversity).

Attempting to explain the drop in participation of women since the 80s is very necessary. The fact that 13% of undergraduate CS degrees earned by women in 2010 (http://www.cra.org/resources/taulbee) is an increase is both terrible and a tad optimistic. Yet, before we get excited and say the problem is solved, here's the entire graph: http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/spring07a.pdf In 2011, 57% of the entire workforce are women, 25% of computing workforce are women, around 9% of programmers are women. (http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNum..., http://archive.aneventapart.com/alasurvey2011/01.html) So, we should be paying more attention, there is something wrong, and writing like the original post is part of that discussion and valuable.

Also, please don't tell your kids that they should "ignore them and they will go away." That's not how you deal with bullies... that's how you become invisible.

Specifically, what I tell them is, "Would you give this person a $20 bill? Then don't give them anything more valuable, either." Note that I never once stated my opinion that there are or are not enough women|minorities|gays in technology. If you think that was my point, then my words flew past my meaning and landed in your begonias (this being my Greek tutor's euphemism for that thing that sometimes happens in translations). The original article is horribly polarizing and, I think, creates a hostile environment for the rest of us who aren't dressed for battle.

We have two children. The eldest is male, the youngest is female. It is either the case that the teachers complain more about my daughter's stubbornness than my son's or that I bridle more at it. Either way, it does appear to me that she is being made to feel more shame for her innate mettle than my son ever has. Not all of the bullies she deals with are peers; some of them are teachers, school staff and other adults. As we all well know, a certain amount of subtlety is required in handling bullies in positions of authority. Often in the very least subtle way of "sit down and shut up and obey" -- effecting the least dire consequence, given the circumstance. I, too, have read studies that show women become more "shy" as they advance through secondary school, as a consequence of social pressure. Less of that pressure comes from peers than from adults.

Reducing what I was trying to express to "ignore them and they will go away" has put the ball in the bleachers. Casting what I said into that ends the play. Nope. Very specifically, I'm trying to teach them the art of assessing the situation and deciding if there is any value at all in engaging versus walking away. But before I can do that, I have to teach them how to walk away, because their natural inclination seems to be to engage.

My kids are growing up in a bubble that I did not grow up in. There's something about this bubble that slaps erroneous labels on problems. Some of the problems aren't even problems. This is where emily37's observation resonates: it's sabotage. We can't go through life saying, "I'm not welcome here because of attributes that are beyond my control."

> My kids are growing up in a bubble that I did not grow up in. There's something about this bubble that slaps erroneous labels on problems. Some of the problems aren't even problems.

That's how you see it. They don't have to, and probably won't, see things the same way. Some of their problems might not be problems to you.

> But before I can do that, I have to teach them how to walk away, because their natural inclination seems to be to engage.

Let them engage! Let them both observe and be heard. They are very capable of coming to a conclusion. Your only role should be to ensure that they are heard, visible, and safe. Why would you first teach them to walk away? Why teach them that this form of engagement is negative? Inaction is valid, true, but we should not be afraid to act or suggest that some forms of aggression or anger are invalid.

> Reducing what I was trying to express to "ignore them and they will go away" has put the ball in the bleachers.

I got this message from this statement you made:

> Rather I think of it as not letting other people's drama own any part of me. And that is what I think when anyone complains of anything, be it gender bias or racial bias or religious/political disagreement: nothing can own you unless you let it.

Seems like a valid conclusion to make on my part. Be made out of rubber as though you can just brush off all forms of oppression. But, regardless of being made of rubber, an anchor tied to the waist can still sink you, perhaps regardless of what you do. It requires a collective change to reverse... something I believe your children can inspire.

> We can't go through life saying, "I'm not welcome here because of attributes that are beyond my control."

I wonder, in hesitation, just which attributes you speak of. Regardless, maybe... just maybe... they are within our collective control. The more these types of articles come out, regardless of your feelings that they be suppressed due to their negativity, the more positive discussions like ours will play out in front of your children's generation.

I think this is a reasonable attitude to have, but I think it presents the situation as a false dichotomy. It's not a choice between pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps or live-in-anger-and-finger-pointing. The discussions on this too often devolve into slippery slopes: if -this- is sexism, then how long until we're so PC and whiny that no one is ever judged on their merits?

Like every complex situation in life, things aren't slippery slopes, it's always you're-either-with-us-or-against-us...but I think the sincere frustration that both sides have on this is that there doesn't seem any perfect solution...OK, but there's still room to improve. And I've been someone who tends not to complain, but I've come to be more appreciative of those who do play the part of the squeaky wheel. Not everyone can wait for society to slowly evolve.

In terms of the OP, I think it's a good sincere effort to raise awareness. However, as this is a complex issue, I just think that mantras are of limited value and tend to polarize something that isn't helped by polarization. Also, too many colors.

Very true. I had a choice to respond or rise above and ignore it. I chose to respond. Not to wave my own flag, but to squeak back. Again, it boils down to choice of words. Some words are inherently polarizing. Sister, you might want to check -- I think your fly might be open.

I can't find a clear source for this quote, but it goes something like, "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die."

It's from the Buddha: "Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."