Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

> We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry.

Why? Primary education is overwhelmingly female, for example, but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry which they should be ashamed of.

One should always judge the individual, and no person should ever be stopped from doing anything on the basis of their race, gender, or anything else. However part of that may mean accepting that, after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another.

Personally, I'm not offended or sorry that early primary education is dominated by women. I think an excellent early primary education who is male should be able to each the heights of the profession, but I accept that biology may mean those who are interested in, or good at, the profession may be overwhelmingly female.

View on HN

> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry

Source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. The least you could do is a simple Google search,[0] which would show there is a movement to get more men into teaching.

> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another.

What does this mean? That men "belong" to programming and women "belong" to primary school teaching? (Not college teaching, of course! That's still heavily dominated by men, because they evolved to prefer teaching college-level classes or something. It's biology, you see. There's a "professor" gene inside all men.) That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.

[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching

>> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry

> I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers.

That's a different matter. One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.

>> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another

> What does this mean?

I thought this was self explanatory but obviously not: after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that many of the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.

> That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.

Pardon? Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3]. Sex is a biological construct that is very much a real thing.

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.ht...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-bra...

[3] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nybor...

> One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.

So then... your source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any random teacher, they would tell you that the lack of men in teaching is a problem with the industry. You're still not providing anything to back up your claims.

> after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.

So exactly what I thought. Which part of the brain makes women more inclined to teach grades K through 12? Which part makes men more likely to teach at the college level? Which part makes women not excel as much as men in programming?

> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing.

Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers. It actually shows they would be more likely, as they apparently excel at intuitive thinking, multitasking, and remembering.

That doesn't touch on the fact that I said "think a certain way". I didn't say they are exactly the same. I said there has not been definitive proof that men are hardwired to be programmers/leaders/managers/etc and women are hardwired to be nurses/teachers/caretakers.

> > One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.

> So then... your source?

This is a logical argument. You claimed you spoke to teachers and found something that doesn't correspond to my assertion to be true. I pointed out that it may be true, but it doesn't correspond to my assertion.

If you are now asserting that teachers, in addition to wanting more men in the industry, also think that the lack of men is a problem with their industry, then it's up to you to prove your assertion. And not with 'if you talked to any random teacher'.

>>> That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.

>> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3].

> Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers.

That's correct. All the links are direct responses to your assertion that "men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way" has been proven false each time it's brought up."

I have provided cited three papers to disprove a claim that I've quoted and you've responded by saying it doesn't disprove something else. I'm not going to bother spending time arguing with a child.

> If you are now asserting that teachers, in addition to wanting more men in the industry, also think that the lack of men is a problem with their industry, then it's up to you to prove your assertion. And not with 'if you talked to any random teacher'.

Actually, no. You made the first assertion that teachers don't have a problem with the lack of men. I'm countering with the opposite. There is no assumed default in this case, so it's up to either of us to prove our argument. Here is my proof: http://www.menteach.org/ There are outreach programs to get more men into teaching, which means teachers do think it's a problem.

> I'm not going to bother spending time arguing with a child.

I can only assume the name-calling is due to your frustration with being proved wrong. You should spend some time learning how to better handle yourself.

Checking for similar grants such as the one by google, I found (http://www.ehow.com/info_8641285_grants-male-teachers.html).

It was interesting that none of the grants are "if you are male, thats it. Here is a bunch of money". It is either for teacher that are willing to cater to students from low-income families, or African American male teachers.

I guess Google could add a condition to their grant, in which only female students willing to cater to <unwanted area of the tech industry>, or alternative to people of <ethnic minority> + female status.

Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?

Google's grant doesn't give women a whole bunch of money solely on the basis of being a woman. They have to first qualify for Hacker School, and then they have to qualify for financial aid. Once they do all that, they get some money to help cover expenses while attending the school.

> or African American male teachers.

So then, what's the problem? They're still men, which is apparently the defining factor. That comment doesn't really help your case here; it just makes you look petty and a little bit racist.

> Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?

Gender has nothing to do with genitalia. You really aren't informed on this topic, are you?

You really aren't informed on this topic are you? Have you not seen the discussion about transsexuals and grants given to a specific gender. Sometimes, gender has nothing to do with genitalia, and sometimes it do. It depend, and has been discussed several times in the past.

> little bit racist

You seems a bit out of your depth here. What are you talking about?

Do you have a problem that grants to students are given on the specifics of someone being of the racial and ethnic minority called African American, and is male? Are you a racist? (and feel free to speculate if a answer "yes", or an answer "no" to the first question qualify as an yes or no to the second. Personally, I don't think the first question has anything to do with the second, but it does makes you look a bit petty and a little bit racist to be honest.

> Sometimes, gender has nothing to do with genitalia, and sometimes it do.

No, that's not how it works. Again: Read up before commenting on a topic you're not familiar with. Having a penis does not guarantee a person is a man, and having a vagina does not guarantee a person is a woman. This is pretty basic stuff to understand. I'm not sure why you're having trouble.

> Do you have a problem that grants to students are given on the specifics of someone being of the racial and ethnic minority called African American, and is male?

No. Your comment implied you had the problem, as though because they give it to black men, it somehow detracts from the fact they're giving it to men — like it doesn't count.

You seem very ignorant of all the troubles transsexual persons sometimes get. If everyone agreed that gender != genitalia, yes, it would be a nice world. Sadly, it isn't like that everyone. Being ignorant of this problem isn't good, and i don't know why you are having trouble to understand this.

> Do you have a problem that grants to students are given on the specifics of someone being of the racial and ethnic minority called African American, and is male? > No

Strange, your comment seems to strongly implied you had such problem.

> as though because they give it to black men, it somehow detracts from the fact they're giving it to men — like it doesn't count.

No.

I have read that because teaching funding is usually from the government, "legal reasons" mean there are not many sex specific funds. Perhaps we need to find a private source of funds - bill gates puts a bunch of cash into educational stuff, he might be interested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com