Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tichy | Hacker News Reader

I suspect there are two reasons why men would push for more women in IT:

- lower wages because of higher competition (the employer's incentive)

- more "attractive" workplace wink wink (the employee's perspective)

I know it's not politically correct to say that, but don't shoot the messenger.

I don't think men feel the need for more "female perspectives" in programming. Especially as they wouldn't even know what those would suppose to be.

Women (feminists) push for more women in tech because they have seen some people become rich via tech jobs and feel left out. They don't push for more garbage women and so on.

View on HN

I find it disturbing and sad that you didn't even think to mention egalitarianism in either your male or female reasons to push for more females in tech.

The head of one of the teaching unions in the UK, when pressed on why they weren't trying to recruit more men into teaching, replied that to do so would imply that the women presently doing the job weren't up to scratch.

For me, it's as simple as, if you want to be a tree surgeon, you are expected to act like a tree surgeon. If you want to be a pastry chef, you are expected to act like a pastry chef. And if you are a programmer, you are expected to act like a programmer. Gender doesn't really come into it.

How would "egalitarism" be relevant? Does that imply that every profession should have 50:50 men and women?

If egalitarism were a significant motivator, then there would have to be the same push for garbage women as for IT women. Since there is no push for garbage women, egalitarism disqualifies as a reason.

I think fairness and equality are common enough goals that you shouldn't have to ask me why they would be relevant. You should just know. That doesn't mean you have to agree that they override other considerations, but it's unnecessary to pretend that you don't understand they are important to other people.

I honestly don't understand what you mean. Where did I supposedly argue against fairness and equality?

You asked me how egalitarianism is relevant, and I'm telling you that it should be obvious that it's relevant because some folks think the current distribution of work is not fair to females.

Well you didn't answer what exactly is meant by egalitarian. 50:50 male and female workers in every profession? Or what exactly?

As I said, if "egalitarian" means 50:50 male and female workers, then the same people pushing for tech women would have to be pushing for more garbage women, too. Since they don't, obviously that is not the driving force.

I don't think fairness is necessarily characterized by an exact 50:50 distribution, nor do I think that is a common view of it.

You characterized it as egalitarianism, which could be characterized as 50:50 distribution. In any case I think you should quantify your "demands", or else how can they ever be satisfied? It is not obvious to me why it is unfair if for example a woman is a nurse instead of a PHP developer? Should she begrudge her fate? Why not vice versa (PHP devs who would rather be nurses)?

I don't think he's pretending they aren't important. He's pointing out that people who claim that they are important don't actually act as though they are. I.e. The argument of 'egalitarianism' is used selectively, which makes it into a contradiction in terms.

Randian perspectives are pretty common here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com