Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicktelford | Hacker News Reader

I don't see it as specifically about "getting women coding", rather "addressing the gender bias".

Given that approximately 50% of the population (and ~60% of the "educated" population) are women, it's abnormal for a sector to be so heavily male. This indicates that women are being discouraged, in some way, from entering the sector. Women who might otherwise have contributed a great deal to our industry.

Think of it more about (nearly) doubling the potential number of excellent software engineers than about "encouraging women to code".

View on HN

So, you're saying that aside from genitalia, men and women are exactly the same and, in a vacuum, the distribution of genders in any given profession should be perfectly equal? You really believe that?

"So, you're saying that aside from skin colour, black and white people are exactly the same and, in a vacuum, the distribution of race in any given profession should be perfectly equal? You really believe that?" ^ It wasn't long ago that that type of claim was used often. Sexist views always have some sort of justification like "men and women ARE different!" or "men have a natural ability to think logically and are therefore more suited to programming". You forget that women basically made up most of the early programmers (see Ada Lovelace etc). I would recommend reading the book "Delusions of Gender" to get an overview over the "science" behind claiming that men and women are inherently different and to learn how all of those studies have proven flawed/heavily biased towards a premeditated conclusion.

You're right. Apples and oranges are basically the same thing. That book holds about the same scientific weight as 50 Shades of Grey. If you don't think there are inherent psychological differences between men and women, then you're just delusional.

Where's your evidence for inherent psychological differences? There are differences in adult men and women due to their SOCIALISATION which is not an inherent property. Raise a generation of women to believe that they're useless at male-dominated jobs then they'll start to think they are!

How about this:

So, you're saying that aside from the numerical value, a set of people with an average testosterone level of ~500ng/dL are exactly the same as a set of people with an average testosterone level of ~20?

To deny that hormones exert a tremendous influence over our behaviors and motivations is absurd.

The contention in this particular discussion is that women are somehow not natural programmers. There is no evidence that testosterone levels will affect someone to the extent that they have a natural tendency to logic or programming. Hormones DO have an effect, but it's socialisation that is pressuring men and women to adopt their roles.

>There is no evidence that testosterone levels will affect someone to the extent that they have a natural tendency to logic or programming.

Possibly so, but there's plenty of evidence that testosterone levels affect someone's willingness to work long, tedious hours in isolation in exchange for a higher salary, and give up their personal time for career advancement.

reference? or just speculation?

> I would recommend reading the book "Delusions of Gender"

> to learn how all of those studies have proven flawed/heavily biased

Notice the extreme impression you've gotten from this book. She does not "prove" flaws in all research on this topic, though often her criticisms are valid she chooses areas to criticize and hints that it's representative of all research that show gender differences.

She could have also chosen to criticize studies which attempt to disprove gender differences, which are often just as flawed.

Sure but that isn't her argument. The number of studies that attempt to demonstrate some fundamental difference between the sexes vastly outnumber claims of similarity, and those disproportionate claims need to be addressed. The book goes through the studies that are touted as the most demonstrable difference in the sexes (tests on empathy) and shows how they're flawed and once you control for that flaw there is no demonstrable difference between the sexes.

> The book goes through the studies that are touted as the most demonstrable difference in the sexes (tests on empathy)

Touted as such by whom? It sounds like just Baron-Cohen et al. Your comment gave the impression that "all" studies of gender differences have been refuted.

The most well-known, replicated, large effect study that I'm aware of I searched for and didn't find any reference to in her book. http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf

I assume you're not using this as an example of a study which demonstrates an _inherent_ difference in the sexes..? (it isn't, this study is about as valuable as showing that the mean hair length of females is longer than males. It is an observation of a socialised group. This is irrelevant to the debate about nature vs nurture about sex differences) And yes Baron-Cohen pioneered the notion of the male and female brain. Of course 'scientific' justifications for sexism existed before Baron-Cohen however his studies, and ideas similar to his, dominate scientifically justified sexism at the moment (see: any discussion on womens' inherent lack of logical thinking and hence their role as caregivers and not programmers)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com