Hacker News Reader

Comment by trhway | Hacker News Reader

>Probably because that’s how it was in my family, I had no sisters, but 3 brothers

early socialization is key, be it puppies or children. The fact of life is that tech is statistically male populated environment and by the college graduation time it is just too late (after 20 years of separate pink cuteness for girls and blue coolness for boys one can only wonder what synergy would get unleashed once a pink cutie venture into the blue pack territory). Girls should be exposed to sciences/tech and working together with their male peers on complex projects very early in the K-12 system. That would also naturally adjust males behavior too. And thus just 20 years down the road ...

View on HN

>Girls should be exposed to sciences/tech and working together with their male peers on complex projects very early in the K-12 system. That would also naturally adjust males behavior too. And thus just 20 years down the road ...

Can I ask for some opinions on this...

What if we took this approach, which is one I personally support as I don't think trying to retrofit equality into the industry by way of gender quotas is right at all, but yet the outcome is the same? What if, after investing time and effort into getting children into technology at a very young age, regardless of demographic, we still see white and asian males dominate the field 20 years down the line?

Do we accept that outcome? Or how much harder will we push to force equality in this area?

>Girls should be exposed to sciences/tech and working together with their male peers on complex projects very early in the K-12 system.

I think most people here agree with that statement. The problem is realizing how difficult that is to accomplish when the field is almost in a paradox of male control. The key will always be early exposure to STEM and people that aren't like yourself, but currently this is difficult for women because they are forced into lower self esteem on average than men.

Once women feel like they have the same amount of power in society as men, that's when we start to focus on social adjustment at an early age. Until then, it remains very hard for female-identified persons to "adjust themselves" when they lack adequate role models.

>The problem is realizing how difficult that is to accomplish when the field is almost in a paradox of male control

It isn't though. Being mostly male does not make it male controlled. There is no evil cabal of men trying to keep us out. The vast majority of men in the CS world are falling all over themselves trying to cater to women.

>but currently this is difficult for women because they are forced into lower self esteem on average than men.

What are you basing that on?

>Once women feel like they have the same amount of power in society as men

As long as we refuse to acknowledge reality, that will never happen. We have more power in society than men. We elect the government, we set the agenda, the laws are catered to us. Men still haven't even escaped from basic gender norms.

>There is no evil cabal of men trying to keep us out. The vast majority of men in the CS world are falling all over themselves trying to cater to women.

I'm not saying there's an evil cabal. To the contrary, nearly all of sexism is subconscious. There are a few people that consciously hate women. We call these people misogynists. Most people are sexist. Most people are not, however, misogynists. And falling over themselves trying to cater to women? Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men?

>What are you basing that on?

Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with? Because they genuinely aren't capable? No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role. Males are forced into the typical male gender role. And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance.

>As long as we refuse to acknowledge reality, that will never happen. We have more power in society than men. We elect the government, we set the agenda, the laws are catered to us. Men still haven't even escaped from basic gender norms.

So you make the claim that women have more power in society than men, but go on to claim that you singlehandedly elect the government, set the agenda, AND cater the laws to yourself? Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights? Why is government so male dominated? Why are so many fields dominated by one gender, be it male or female? Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power?

You also seem to imply that I identify as female. I do not.

>Most people are sexist

And you are basing that on what?

>Why is it, then, that when Jeff Atwood posted his "What Men Can Do" article, and was called out by feminists for mansplaining, (and Mr. Atwood himself was very deliberately sexist in the comments to boot) that the feminists were viciously attacked by a sea of technically oriented white men?

What an absurdly loaded question. Because feminists were attacking an ally over nothing. "Mansplaining" is not a thing, it is a term made up specifically by sexists to dismiss people they do not wish to be heard.

>Why do you think there are fewer women in STEM fields to begin with?

Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields.

>No, it's because from a very early age most people who are born female are forced into the female gender role

Again, what are you basing that on? All scientific evidence suggests that gender roles are deeply rooted in our genes. There is absolutely no evidence to support the widely discredited nurture only hypothesis.

>And yes, the female gender role includes low self esteem and male dependance.

No it does not.

>Then why exactly is the country in the process of taking a very anti-feminist approach to reproductive rights?

It isn't. And why do you conflate "anti-feminist" with anti woman? Most women are not feminists, and do not support feminism.

>Why is government so male dominated?

Because few women wish to be in government. Notice how often we get elected when we run?

>Putting aside the fact that you don't quite understand what gender roles/norms are, is it not concerning to you that government is an extremely male dominated field and yet you believe you're in power?

Putting aside your condescending lie, no, why would that concern me? I do not care what sex organs the people I elect posses, I care that they do what we elect them to do. They overwhelmingly introduce, support, and vote for things that women want. Even when they are outright sexist things that women should not be seeking like remedies to the mythological wage gap.

>You also seem to imply that I identify as female.

I seem to do no such thing.

> Putting aside your condescending lie

No personal attacks on Hacker News, please, regardless of how provocative someone else may have been.

All: Please keep this thread civil and substantive.

It is not an attack. It is an accurate description of his words.

I'm not a he.

"I'm not a she". "I'm not a he".

Guess how much I care?

Even if it were true, "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" would beg the question. Why do they not wish to be in STEM fields? One straightforward factor might be the isolation they'd experience in being a tiny minority.

The term "feminist" is being tossed around pretty casually, too. That's convenient for both sides of the argument but unfortunate for truth-seeking, since the term can mean whatever the arguer wants it to be. I presume most women do in fact want equal rights, for instance. Most women probably don't want the end of all men.

The term "STEM" is also being used haphazardly. Your assertion that "most women do not wish to be in STEM fields" doesn't square with the facts. What would have been more accurate would be to say that most women don't want to work in computer science. But that's a less defensible gap; it's hard to come up with a compelling reason why women would want to be chemists, doctors, or actuaries, but not computer scientists.

It raises the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. The most straightforward factor is that men and women are actually different. Many studies have shown that innate gender preferences manifest in infancy. I knew I was different from most girls when I was very young. The vast majority of other women I've met at work and at conferences have been similar. We were into "boy stuff". That's perfectly fine. But it doesn't mean the girls who are not into "boy stuff" are broken and need to be fixed.

This argument is so vague that it could be used to justify virtually any gender discrimination. If this issue is so simple and straightforward as to be disposed of in a 90 word comment, why aren't you able to connect any specific difference between men and women to the computer science field, or to explain why women are so comfortable in other STEM fields?

That aside: yes, I was intending to suggest that your previous argument was fallacious. I don't believe the premise of your argument was valid. But even had it been, it would still not answer the question it pretends to answer.

We're comfortable in CS too. That's the point. I don't see how you figure I was begging the question, but at this point I also don't care. Being told I don't know what it is like to be a woman by men gets pretty old.

You can feel free to substitute, with my apology, any other shorthand representing the sharp difference in female participation in CS as opposed to other STEM fields. I didn't choose that word carefully and am not wedded to it. Would it then be possible to respond substantively to my comment?

This exchange between imanaccount247 and tctapek is incredibly fascinating.

One the one hand, we have a female who has a very accurate understanding of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and logic. Her arguments are logically coherent and validated by centuries of empirical science.

On the other hand, we have a male who has violated Occam's Razor so many times that he has completely annihilated any hope of a coherent hypothesis. His arguments imply conspiracy theories behind the formation of family, society, government, and history itself. All reason is abandoned, and science ignored.

Now the question is...does it really matter which position the male took vs. the female? One of these arguments is far more coherent than the other. Which position an individual supports reveals far more about the person than about the true nature of sexual dimorphism, since the laws of the universe do not suddenly change to cater to the opinions of a few misinformed primates.

EDIT: Hello tctapek! Thanks for the downvote. In case you one day want to educate yourself about the science behind human biology (and its numerous resultant consequences), here are a few books you'll no doubt find elucidating:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evol...

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Animal

For some advanced reading, you can move onto the Extended Phenotype by Dawkins, and the references contained therein.

Enjoy, and remember, the world is yours to discover! Science will always be waiting.

EDIT 2: If you lack the patience for all that, here (http://edge.org/memberbio/helena_cronin) is an expert in the field who explains all of imanaccount247's assertions in video format. Enjoy!

>On the other hand, we have a male who has violated Occam's Razor so many times that he has completely annihilated any hope of a coherent hypothesis. His arguments imply conspiracy theories behind the formation of family, society, government, and history itself. All reason is abandoned, and science ignored.

It is typical position of an "enlightened reasonable conservative". A very successful and stable position in modern society (and on this site in particular). At first look one may think that extremal morons are the ones presenting main obstacle to progress, yet looking just a bit more one can see that it is the reasonable conservatives in the middle who form the humongous main unmovable mass.

>One the one hand, we have a female who has a very accurate understanding of evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, genetics, and logic. Her arguments are logically coherent and validated by centuries of empirical science.

all these coherent arguments are just like waves splashing against the stone. No chance. It isn't a game of logic and reason, even though it may look so.

I knew I was different from most boys when I was very young, too. Naturally, I too grew up to be a programmer.

So I guess programming must be a girl thing, according to this logic.

>Because most women do not wish to be in STEM fields.

I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases. That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field.

The argument is that traditionally underrepresented groups ( obvious things like race, gender) might benefit from being exposed to prominent figures in the desired field early on.

I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up. And even if it was true that fewer women wanted to be in STEM fields, is this simply a reinforcement of the fact that few exist in the field to begin with?

>I think the parent's (and general) argument against that is that we are socialized early on to have biases

Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.

>That if you grow up exposed to a situation were a majority of those in a field are unlike you in some very obvious way, you are less likely to want to be in the field.

Except I did grow up like that, and it did not influence what fields I was interested in at all.

>I don't think we can accurately claim "few women wish to be in X field" without some form of empirical data to back it up.

Many studies have shown innate gender preferences begin before socialization. It seems unlikely that STEM is somehow uniquely affected by it. Especially since the number of women in CS has been going down as we've been making such a big fuss about women in CS.

>Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.

Is there? Where? And if it truly is nature over nurture, then why is it that women are interested in STEM at all? Why isn't the field entirely male instead of majority male? And the answer is, because people are different. Yes, they have different preferences. Yes, those preferences differ by gender. No, it is not solidly linked to genetics.

I have a very hard time believing you are trying to have a serious conversation here. "If men are on average taller than women, then why aren't all men taller than all women?". Surely you must realize the absurdity of your question. Yes, those preferences differ by sex and it is solidly linked to genetics. These preferences are exhibited before any socialization has occurred. Even other apes exhibit similar differences in preferences, can you seriously try to claim that is due to sexism?

> Yes, but there is strong evidence that it is more nature than nurture.

Do you mind providing links/references that support the claim? That would be very helpful for the overall argument.

I also grew up in a similar fashion. But I don't think we can accurately extrapolate our anecdotal data over an entire population, no?

I agree that it is hard to tell whether something is nature vs nurture and it is rather short-sighted for us to blindly assume that all disinterest by a group in a field is due to nurture, but I don't have hard data backing it up. Mind sharing if you have any?

Fallacy of the excluded middle, in admitting only to two possibilities: that there's either an "evil cabal of men trying to keep women out" of the industry, or no systemic problem with gender bias in the industry.

In fact, the most logical explanation for systemic gender bias in the industry involves virtually no intentionality on the part of men, and is still deeply damaging to women.

Well, you could say that proving the existence of this evil cabal is a lot like the devil's proof. Is it so far fetched to believe that a group of old, white males has an incentive to maintain the status quo?

Yes, that's pretty far-fetched.

The most logical explanation requires neither sexism nor damage to women.

My explanation is a self-reinforcing cycle of privilege accorded unintentionally and often subconsciously to in-group members who can, for instance, breeze through a job interview by looking like their interviewer, sharing the same after-work interests as their interviewers, &c. What's yours?

Gingerly, I'd like also to remind you that you haven't responded to the core point of my comment, which is that the argument you chose to rebut the grandparent comment was fallacious on its face. Even if you don't believe in the concept of "privilege", which is a hot-button word, it's still not valid to argue that the lack of an evil cabal means women aren't systematically disfavored by the technology industry.

>My explanation is a self-reinforcing cycle of privilege

why "privilege"? it is just recently so happened that due to some quirks of human economical and technological organization the job [blue collar job of 21st century really] is relatively well paid today in some geographical areas of well developed countries. Just a sheer luck (if not count for significantly damaged eyesight). May easily be not such luck tomorrow - just ask the guys who held the good paying middle-class jobs in Detroit when it was all the rage.

>accorded unintentionally

well, yes. 25 years ago i didn't see any girl wanting to sneak with us at night into the University datacenter to get some machine time (on USSR clone of IBM-360), smoke cheap unfiltered cigarettes, drink watered down ethanol while gaming or reading through meters of printed out memory hex-dumps ... Definitely the environment wasn't attractive to girls [or to anybody else except us fascinated by computers], and honestly i can't even imagine how it could have been otherwise even theoretically ...

That to me is the reason why there are not much women senior-level engineers around. Because one needs to sow long before one can harvest. You wanna women doing that job 20 years from now - you need to start working toward that goal at least today, if not yesterday, preferably starting at early school.

I never said what you want me to defend, so it makes no sense for me to defend it. The person I replied to claimed men controlled the industry. That would require some sort of cabal (evil or otherwise). I think it is preposterous to suggest such a thing. I never said women are not systematically disfavored because that cabal does not exist. Whether or not women are systematically disfavored is an entirely separate issue. I do not believe we are because my experience has not supported that, and because the low number of women in CS is easily explained without it: women have different interests than men.

And by "different interests", you mean that women are singularly disinterested in computer science, despite strong representation in other STEM fields and other professional fields with analytical components, including such extremely demanding fields as medicine and corporate law?

Some rando upthread accused me of violating Occam's Razor.

No, I mean women tend to have a preference for jobs involving people rather than things. This is generally framed as "we need more women in STEM fields", so it seems odd that you feel every other STEM field is peachy and just CS is a problem. If you merely want to steal away the minority of women who are interested in STEM fields from the better options to CS then I'm afraid we might need to reconsider constantly insisting that CS is horrible for women. I do not believe that strategy attracts women very well (the corresponding drop in women in CS seems to support this).

If women "have a preference for jobs involving people rather than things", why are they so well-represented in chemistry? Is chemistry an especially social science? That's what you want to hang the whole enormous gender gap in CS on? That CS is uniquely antisocial?

To the contrary: CS seems especially social compared to the hard sciences --- people work on teams and discuss trivia endlessly in a variety of venues.

You seem to have skipped the "read my post" step and jumped straight to the "reply" step. Women are not "so well-represented in chemistry". As I said, the complaint is generally that women are under represented in STEM fields period, which is why I responded as such. The latter part of my post addresses the "I just want CS to steal the few STEM interested women from chemistry" case.

I don't understand this response, since the representation of women in chemistry is a fact I believe I introduced to the thread, not something you introduced that I responded to.

The participation of women in other STEM fields is very inconvenient to your argument, which you've made clearly and repeatedly, that the gender gap in computer science owes largely to a preference among women to avoid CS.

As HN seems to be designed to prevent conversations, I can not reply frequently enough to be wasting my posts on someone who simply does not read them. I do not know how to make my post any clearer. The participation of women in other STEM fields reinforces my argument. Women are a minority across the board. This is why the discussion is always about needing more women in STEM, not just CS specifically. As I said, if you wish to steal away the minority of women interested in STEM fields from other STEM fields, I suggest tackling the problem of feminists loudly proclaiming CS to be sexist all the time. I do not believe that is an effective way to market CS to women.

> I think most people here agree with that statement.

Partly because people want more people that are like themselves. Which is ironically the problem with this whole gender imbalance thing in the first place.

The problem is realizing how difficult that is to accomplish when the field is almost in a paradox of male control.

That's a broad brush. Go to any biological sciences program and you'll see that woman are by far the majority. Even when I was doing it 20 years ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com