Girls Who Code(avc.com)
avc.com
Girls Who Code
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/12/girls-who-code.html
396 comments
I don't necessarily agree with this metaphor, but it was entertaining and a fresh approach to the girls in tech problem. I especially thought 'Male players wanted more females playing so it didn't feel like a damn sausagefest all the time, and to help with dating' was hilarious.
Anyway, my major problem with your assertion is that we know that the number of female bouncyballers has been going down significantly over the last few decades. It's not as if women have gotten significantly shorter, or men have gotten significantly taller in that time period, so the difference in participation rates can't be explained entirely with biology.
Anyway, my major problem with your assertion is that we know that the number of female bouncyballers has been going down significantly over the last few decades. It's not as if women have gotten significantly shorter, or men have gotten significantly taller in that time period, so the difference in participation rates can't be explained entirely with biology.
It could be that the industry has become more flexible and meritocratic. The top post in this article mentions IBM and other big companies being more minority-friendly. But they also represent an older management style. The current industry with its focus on innovation and getting things done, may actually be more meritocratic.
The percent of female bouncyballers has been going down, but has the absolute number?
A place I worked at previously had a manager who managed 2 small teams. One that did analytics, and another that did media/communications, for a total of about 10 people. On my first week of work, we had a meeting and in the middle of some discussion, he literally said "girls are better than guys. If I could, I would hire only girls". No specific reason, just girls are better than guys (he had 3 daughters though, so I don't know if that was the reason). It still blows my mind to this day that he said that out loud.
At one point we had a female intern who was on a 8 month work term. 3 months into her workterm, the manager offered her a full-time position, not contingent on her graduation (she was in 3rd year and planned to return to complete school). Now I'm not anyone to judge, but I will say her performance wasn't particularly impressive, especially compared to other interns on the team, one of who (male) had already graduated, interned for a total of 20 months, and took on plenty of duties. 5 months into the workterm, she ended up wiping a ton of live data of a fairly important legacy application, effectively costing the company a few hundred k. A year later she's working there full-time as expected, but from what I understand, she didn't end up graduating anyways. The male intern worked on that team for 13ish months, then finally got full-time through a different team. All I will say is that this company is one of the tech giants.
I agree we need more females in the field, but like many other people have mentioned, lowering the hiring bar in an intentional effort to hire a female hacker isn't very helpful. The problem is we're not producing enough qualified women, and overcompensating to fix that is not a good long term solution. There are plenty of very talented female hackers, and we do need them, but we also need to fix the root of the problem, and not intentionally skewing hiring to meet level of acceptable gender diversity.
Women in the field also face other challenges, such as not being as vocal as males when it comes to promotions/raises, so it's common for them to have lower salaries than their male counterparts. There are lots of issues females face in this field, but let's look at fixing the root cause.
At one point we had a female intern who was on a 8 month work term. 3 months into her workterm, the manager offered her a full-time position, not contingent on her graduation (she was in 3rd year and planned to return to complete school). Now I'm not anyone to judge, but I will say her performance wasn't particularly impressive, especially compared to other interns on the team, one of who (male) had already graduated, interned for a total of 20 months, and took on plenty of duties. 5 months into the workterm, she ended up wiping a ton of live data of a fairly important legacy application, effectively costing the company a few hundred k. A year later she's working there full-time as expected, but from what I understand, she didn't end up graduating anyways. The male intern worked on that team for 13ish months, then finally got full-time through a different team. All I will say is that this company is one of the tech giants.
I agree we need more females in the field, but like many other people have mentioned, lowering the hiring bar in an intentional effort to hire a female hacker isn't very helpful. The problem is we're not producing enough qualified women, and overcompensating to fix that is not a good long term solution. There are plenty of very talented female hackers, and we do need them, but we also need to fix the root of the problem, and not intentionally skewing hiring to meet level of acceptable gender diversity.
Women in the field also face other challenges, such as not being as vocal as males when it comes to promotions/raises, so it's common for them to have lower salaries than their male counterparts. There are lots of issues females face in this field, but let's look at fixing the root cause.
I'd like to call attention to this part of Fred's post which many of the sub-threads appear to have overlooked:
Instead of turning Paul's comments into a blogosphere shitstorm, maybe we would all be better off staring the issue in the face and thinking about how each of us could help make a difference on this issue
How would you help a 13-year-old -- of either gender? -- get interested in programming?
Raspberry Pi? PyGame? Lego FIRST robotics? How can some of these initiatives be spread more widely to those who maybe don't have supportive family or communities to encourage their nerdy, high-school-pariah interest in tech?
Instead of turning Paul's comments into a blogosphere shitstorm, maybe we would all be better off staring the issue in the face and thinking about how each of us could help make a difference on this issue
How would you help a 13-year-old -- of either gender? -- get interested in programming?
Raspberry Pi? PyGame? Lego FIRST robotics? How can some of these initiatives be spread more widely to those who maybe don't have supportive family or communities to encourage their nerdy, high-school-pariah interest in tech?
I don't understand all this excitement about the magical age of 13. Personally, I've never stopped learning--whether it's analytics, business, software development, or machine learning.
I don't think it's any harder for me to learn stuff now at 28 than it was when I was 13. If anything, it's easier, because I have a much wider baseline of knowledge that I can use to reference things. For example, I learned set theory in high school => I can apply that to relational databases today.
I do know some people, both men and women, that sort of stopped learning new stuff in their twenties, and now they're pretty much stuck. They can't keep up with technology changes (e.g., how does the router work) and they don't have a good baseline for learning new stuff. Nor the will.
I don't think it's any harder for me to learn stuff now at 28 than it was when I was 13. If anything, it's easier, because I have a much wider baseline of knowledge that I can use to reference things. For example, I learned set theory in high school => I can apply that to relational databases today.
I do know some people, both men and women, that sort of stopped learning new stuff in their twenties, and now they're pretty much stuck. They can't keep up with technology changes (e.g., how does the router work) and they don't have a good baseline for learning new stuff. Nor the will.
>There was something about those big, boring corporations of the 1970s and 1980s that actually gave female hackers more acceptance than what startups have offered.
Yes: a 9-5 job mentality and a lack of emphasis on nerdy type hackers doing their thing.
Yes: a 9-5 job mentality and a lack of emphasis on nerdy type hackers doing their thing.
Mandatory plug for:
Free Ruby on Rails workshops [sf] for women and their friends
http://sfrubyworkshops.com/
It's run by the same folks that run the SF Ruby meetup (the huge one)... they're neat, chill folks.
Free Ruby on Rails workshops [sf] for women and their friends
http://sfrubyworkshops.com/
It's run by the same folks that run the SF Ruby meetup (the huge one)... they're neat, chill folks.
> Paul asks "God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers?"
(My comment, repeated from the other similar thread that got go superseded by this one)
The problem of getting anyone, young or adult, interested in a subject --any subject-- isn't one with a simple solution. Technical subjects have the added difficulty that they require you to use your brain in non-trivial ways. Given equal exposure to the subject matter, I fail to see how a male or female subject would react differently to the idea of learning that subject. This, of course, assuming that both the male and female subjects got to that moment in time with a similar educational and perhaps even cultural frame of reference. If a mother only ever bought a little girl frilly pink and shiny things, well, it is probably unlikely that as a teenage girl or an adult woman she would even remotely show interest in learning more technical subjects. She will probably be a dancer and go into the arts or some other less "brainy" occupation. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this, but they are probably few and far between.
The same is true of boys. If they are brought-up in front of a playstation, shooting at things, playing sports, and well outside of more academically focused areas he will probably grow up to be a jock and then move on to careers that do well when you use half your brain. Hell, he might even go into sales! Things are vastly different if you feed your kids a constant diet of what they should be learning in order to operate at a different level when they are older. My teenage son finished MIT's CS 6.00.1x course just a few weeks ago. That did not happen magically. That was a lot of work. For me and for him! And that also required a lot of work to get to the point where he could even be shoved into that end of the pool.
My little girl is too young to think about formal learning of these kinds of subject, but this year she got introduced to Lego robotics and is starting to like it. Yet, the situation is exactly the same: It requires a ton of time and dedication on my part --as the designated nerd at home-- to keep her exposed to such subjects and make it fun. I have to get silly while teaching something useful. I have to figure out ways to make robotics fun, silly, exciting and something she wants to do. We don't buy lots of silly frilly things for her. That said, I have to tell you, it is hard to fight both genetics and exposure to such things through her peers.
I guess my message is that parents needs to be very engaged and active in bringing up a child into the sciences and technology. It will not happen by osmosis. And, I really don't think gender makes a huge difference. It might change the approach, but I don't think it is the primary determinant of success or failure. One way I've explained this in the past to friends who marvel at what my kids are doing is that this is like a Formula 1 car drafting a car in front of them. You need to drive well and use a lot of effort to get close enough to be within the zone where drafting happens. Up until that point you are using a lot more energy to chase the car in front of you. Once you get into the drafting zone you need less power to maintain the same speed. Yet, you still need that foot solidly planted on the accelerator.
With kids you have to push, push, push. I have navigated through really frustrating moments when I've gotten angry because I couldn't understand why he (my oldest son) didn't just grab that book I bought for him and launched himself into software development nirvana. Of course, I always reflected upon these things and never externalized them --not much of a motivator to yell and scream at your kid about learning something-- and realized that (a) he is still young and (b) we are not in the "draft zone" yet. It'll take a lot more effort --and this is different from kid to kid-- to get him into the "draft zone". Once we reach that zone it will require a lot less energy on my part and, if interested, he will ultimately need virtually no support from me.
This is where I look at some of the things being said about STEM education and can't help but think we are just throwing money into a big bonfire. You can't force people into learning anything. A lot of my kid's friends are, well, jocks or exhibit no interest in anything at all. They are navigating through school with no guidance or encouragement in any direction whatsoever. You can't just throw money at that and expect things to change. For most kids it requires far more work than can be done during the time they are at school. Yes, of course, there are a few kids in every sample group that need almost zero work. These kids get hooked on a subject like programming and just go, go , go. Most kids are not like that. Just like most successful businesses did not get launched with a long coding session over a weekend while eating popcorn.
Going back to my little girl, she is not seriously exposed to Lego robotics. In fact, our living room table is an official FLL table with the official field mat and everything. Yes, we are serious about this. I'd rather have a learning environment in my living room than a fancy dinning room table. As far as why there aren't more women in tech today. I don't have the answer for that. I only know that when I was a teenager girls mostly did different stuff. Not because they were being forced away from tech, they simply showed no interest in what we were doing. My guess is that it all came from home. So, as our culture changes so will that aspect of things.
Evolution?
(My comment, repeated from the other similar thread that got go superseded by this one)
The problem of getting anyone, young or adult, interested in a subject --any subject-- isn't one with a simple solution. Technical subjects have the added difficulty that they require you to use your brain in non-trivial ways. Given equal exposure to the subject matter, I fail to see how a male or female subject would react differently to the idea of learning that subject. This, of course, assuming that both the male and female subjects got to that moment in time with a similar educational and perhaps even cultural frame of reference. If a mother only ever bought a little girl frilly pink and shiny things, well, it is probably unlikely that as a teenage girl or an adult woman she would even remotely show interest in learning more technical subjects. She will probably be a dancer and go into the arts or some other less "brainy" occupation. That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to this, but they are probably few and far between.
The same is true of boys. If they are brought-up in front of a playstation, shooting at things, playing sports, and well outside of more academically focused areas he will probably grow up to be a jock and then move on to careers that do well when you use half your brain. Hell, he might even go into sales! Things are vastly different if you feed your kids a constant diet of what they should be learning in order to operate at a different level when they are older. My teenage son finished MIT's CS 6.00.1x course just a few weeks ago. That did not happen magically. That was a lot of work. For me and for him! And that also required a lot of work to get to the point where he could even be shoved into that end of the pool.
My little girl is too young to think about formal learning of these kinds of subject, but this year she got introduced to Lego robotics and is starting to like it. Yet, the situation is exactly the same: It requires a ton of time and dedication on my part --as the designated nerd at home-- to keep her exposed to such subjects and make it fun. I have to get silly while teaching something useful. I have to figure out ways to make robotics fun, silly, exciting and something she wants to do. We don't buy lots of silly frilly things for her. That said, I have to tell you, it is hard to fight both genetics and exposure to such things through her peers.
I guess my message is that parents needs to be very engaged and active in bringing up a child into the sciences and technology. It will not happen by osmosis. And, I really don't think gender makes a huge difference. It might change the approach, but I don't think it is the primary determinant of success or failure. One way I've explained this in the past to friends who marvel at what my kids are doing is that this is like a Formula 1 car drafting a car in front of them. You need to drive well and use a lot of effort to get close enough to be within the zone where drafting happens. Up until that point you are using a lot more energy to chase the car in front of you. Once you get into the drafting zone you need less power to maintain the same speed. Yet, you still need that foot solidly planted on the accelerator.
With kids you have to push, push, push. I have navigated through really frustrating moments when I've gotten angry because I couldn't understand why he (my oldest son) didn't just grab that book I bought for him and launched himself into software development nirvana. Of course, I always reflected upon these things and never externalized them --not much of a motivator to yell and scream at your kid about learning something-- and realized that (a) he is still young and (b) we are not in the "draft zone" yet. It'll take a lot more effort --and this is different from kid to kid-- to get him into the "draft zone". Once we reach that zone it will require a lot less energy on my part and, if interested, he will ultimately need virtually no support from me.
This is where I look at some of the things being said about STEM education and can't help but think we are just throwing money into a big bonfire. You can't force people into learning anything. A lot of my kid's friends are, well, jocks or exhibit no interest in anything at all. They are navigating through school with no guidance or encouragement in any direction whatsoever. You can't just throw money at that and expect things to change. For most kids it requires far more work than can be done during the time they are at school. Yes, of course, there are a few kids in every sample group that need almost zero work. These kids get hooked on a subject like programming and just go, go , go. Most kids are not like that. Just like most successful businesses did not get launched with a long coding session over a weekend while eating popcorn.
Going back to my little girl, she is not seriously exposed to Lego robotics. In fact, our living room table is an official FLL table with the official field mat and everything. Yes, we are serious about this. I'd rather have a learning environment in my living room than a fancy dinning room table. As far as why there aren't more women in tech today. I don't have the answer for that. I only know that when I was a teenager girls mostly did different stuff. Not because they were being forced away from tech, they simply showed no interest in what we were doing. My guess is that it all came from home. So, as our culture changes so will that aspect of things.
Evolution?
I am a male who started programming in my early teens on large computers at a major tech university along with other boys who were passionate about programming computers (and working on bicycles, in garages, etc.). We tried to get girls interested but they were not interested in programming computers, they had other interests which is alright.
You do not need computer science course to start programming. What you need is a passion and what is very helpful is the assistance of someone who can help you with your questions.
75% of the graduates with PhDs in psychology are women and the fields of fashion and ballet/dance are dominated by women by you never hear calls for more males to enter these fields.
IMHO, computer programming, like medicine are fields that one should not enter unless they have a passion for the field.
Autism research Simon Baron-Cohen speaks of the differences between male and female brains. Boys are 8 times more likely to be autistic than girls. Autism (and the related Aspergers) and very good at systemitizing but bad at empathisizing. Females are more likely to be empathizers than males. Of course there is overlap and some women are better at sytemitizing than some men and some men are better at empathizing than some women, but that 8:1 difference in Autism in boys over girls probably is an indication of the imbalance of boys over girls who are passionate about programming computers.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing...
These are three on-line tests from Baron-Cohen that help determine your EQ and SQ (empathizing quotient and systemitizing quotient).
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/faces/eyestest.aspx
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/empathyquotient/empathyquoti...
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/systemizingquotient/systemiz...
75% of the graduates with PhDs in psychology are women and the fields of fashion and ballet/dance are dominated by women by you never hear calls for more males to enter these fields.
IMHO, computer programming, like medicine are fields that one should not enter unless they have a passion for the field.
Autism research Simon Baron-Cohen speaks of the differences between male and female brains. Boys are 8 times more likely to be autistic than girls. Autism (and the related Aspergers) and very good at systemitizing but bad at empathisizing. Females are more likely to be empathizers than males. Of course there is overlap and some women are better at sytemitizing than some men and some men are better at empathizing than some women, but that 8:1 difference in Autism in boys over girls probably is an indication of the imbalance of boys over girls who are passionate about programming computers.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing...
These are three on-line tests from Baron-Cohen that help determine your EQ and SQ (empathizing quotient and systemitizing quotient).
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/faces/eyestest.aspx
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/empathyquotient/empathyquoti...
http://glennrowe.net/baroncohen/systemizingquotient/systemiz...
is the eye test baiting me?!
INSERT INTO EyesTest VALUES('al', 'Male', 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 3, 2, 2, 3, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 2, 3, 2, 22, '207.216.200.118', '2013-12-30 17:22:41')
I bet you they've long since lost their database.
INSERT INTO EyesTest VALUES('al', 'Male', 2, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 0, 3, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 0, 3, 2, 2, 3, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 2, 3, 2, 22, '207.216.200.118', '2013-12-30 17:22:41')
I bet you they've long since lost their database.
What great timing. BTW, thanks to all of you who backed my crowdtilt to bring BlackGirlsCode to Brooklyn!
https://www.crowdtilt.com/campaigns/no-sleep-till-brooklyn-f...
I am so, so glad to see a much more high quality discussion (thanks in large part to lkrubner's insightful top comment) going on here today than the travesty that accompanied your post about Black Girls Code. The reactions that provoked made me feel sick. I guess the important think is your campaign is being supported and funded! But It's always a shock to see the dark side of this community revealed so starkly.
Awesome. Thanks for letting me know about this campaign! Best wishes, Brooklyn person.
I am a man.
These initiatives will simply not work. Imagine "Men Nurse."
Many women SIMPLY do not code for the same reason many men do not code. Most of us were not exposed to the science as kids, hence step 1 is to make Programming mandatory. Note I say programming and not C.S.. I am an amateur programmer and I can say wit confidence that this is as fundamental as basic arithmetic. Full stop.
I frankly wish they shut down "Girls Who Code" entirely and all the likes. Instead we can put our efforts into teaching everyone to code: "We Code." Because once someone does something as simple as print (2+2)-(3-2) or print $first_name + $last_name or (my favorite) <html><h1>The Website of Me</h1><p>My name is Joanna. This is my first web page.<img src='..'></p></html>, once they do this, there is simply no going back for them.
These initiatives will simply not work. Imagine "Men Nurse."
Many women SIMPLY do not code for the same reason many men do not code. Most of us were not exposed to the science as kids, hence step 1 is to make Programming mandatory. Note I say programming and not C.S.. I am an amateur programmer and I can say wit confidence that this is as fundamental as basic arithmetic. Full stop.
I frankly wish they shut down "Girls Who Code" entirely and all the likes. Instead we can put our efforts into teaching everyone to code: "We Code." Because once someone does something as simple as print (2+2)-(3-2) or print $first_name + $last_name or (my favorite) <html><h1>The Website of Me</h1><p>My name is Joanna. This is my first web page.<img src='..'></p></html>, once they do this, there is simply no going back for them.
There are tons of male nurses. 'iamelgringo, a former top contributor here, is an ER nurse.
Back of the envelope:
There are ~24,000,000 people aged 18-24 in the US. Assume half are female: there are ~12,000,000 "girls who might code" in the US. Of these, 12.6% are African American. There are ~1,440,00 "black girls who might code" in the US.
There are ~400,000 people who live in Tulsa.
There have probably been several "Tulsa Codes!" events in the past couple years, but either way just stipulate that it could happen. A "Tulsa Codes!" event addresses just 400,000 people. For logistical and practical reasons, that event locks out an overwhelmingly huge number of potential beneficiaries.
But nobody has a problem with "Tulsa Codes!". Threads aren't full of people ranting about "third wave feminism" when they do.
Back of the envelope:
There are ~24,000,000 people aged 18-24 in the US. Assume half are female: there are ~12,000,000 "girls who might code" in the US. Of these, 12.6% are African American. There are ~1,440,00 "black girls who might code" in the US.
There are ~400,000 people who live in Tulsa.
There have probably been several "Tulsa Codes!" events in the past couple years, but either way just stipulate that it could happen. A "Tulsa Codes!" event addresses just 400,000 people. For logistical and practical reasons, that event locks out an overwhelmingly huge number of potential beneficiaries.
But nobody has a problem with "Tulsa Codes!". Threads aren't full of people ranting about "third wave feminism" when they do.
9.6% of all RNs are male [0]
Why is there not a male nurse initiative? Or male elementary teacher initiative[1]?
I have to admit, I am strongly against things like "Girls who code". If there truly are issues in our culture that prevent girls from looking into coding, then absolutely let's get rid of those as best we can. But a girl can look into and explore coding just as easily as a boy can. There's really nothing stopping them. I have a few male nurse friends too. Nothing stopped them either, they simply found nursing interesting and pursued it. There might simply be fewer female coders because they tend to not be interested in this profession, same as male nurses.
[0] -- http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics [1] -- http://www.menteach.org/resources/data_about_men_teachers
Why is there not a male nurse initiative? Or male elementary teacher initiative[1]?
I have to admit, I am strongly against things like "Girls who code". If there truly are issues in our culture that prevent girls from looking into coding, then absolutely let's get rid of those as best we can. But a girl can look into and explore coding just as easily as a boy can. There's really nothing stopping them. I have a few male nurse friends too. Nothing stopped them either, they simply found nursing interesting and pursued it. There might simply be fewer female coders because they tend to not be interested in this profession, same as male nurses.
[0] -- http://www.minoritynurse.com/minority-nursing-statistics [1] -- http://www.menteach.org/resources/data_about_men_teachers
Why is there not a male nurse initiative? Or male elementary teacher initiative[1]?
There are! It's just not discussed on HN because this isn't a site focused on nursing and teaching, but copying from a prior post of mine, 45 seconds of Googling brought up http://www.malenursemagazine.com http://www.menteach.org/ and http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/recruiting-men-nursing-....
There are! It's just not discussed on HN because this isn't a site focused on nursing and teaching, but copying from a prior post of mine, 45 seconds of Googling brought up http://www.malenursemagazine.com http://www.menteach.org/ and http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/recruiting-men-nursing-....
malenursemagazine.com seems to be a spam/product placement blog
menteach.org has a (C) of 2007, and a dead forum.
menteach.org has a (C) of 2007, and a dead forum.
Why is there not a male nurse initiative?
Did you actually look?
http://www.gatewayct.edu/Programs-Courses/Divisions-Departme...
http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/man-enough-20-x-20-choo...
http://aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml
Likewise the male teachers of younger children.
Did you actually look?
http://www.gatewayct.edu/Programs-Courses/Divisions-Departme...
http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/man-enough-20-x-20-choo...
http://aamn.org/choosenursing.shtml
Likewise the male teachers of younger children.
You're correct. I did not look. And it does make sense that they would exist.
Yeah, maybe my original comment was wrong. Maybe my view on this is wrong. I will admit seeing the male nurse initiatives does give me a different perspective on this.
Yeah, maybe my original comment was wrong. Maybe my view on this is wrong. I will admit seeing the male nurse initiatives does give me a different perspective on this.
This comment sets a good example.
Best comment in this thread.
> Why is there not a male nurse initiative?
There are male nurse initiatives, e.g., [1].
> Or male elementary teacher initiative?
There are those, too [2].
There's even specifically (ethnic) minority male teacher initiatives. [3]
The fact that you are ignorant of something and haven't even done a simple Google search to look into it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[1] http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/recruiting-men-nursing-...
[2] http://www.menteach.org/
[3] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/shortage_of_minorit...
There are male nurse initiatives, e.g., [1].
> Or male elementary teacher initiative?
There are those, too [2].
There's even specifically (ethnic) minority male teacher initiatives. [3]
The fact that you are ignorant of something and haven't even done a simple Google search to look into it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
[1] http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/recruiting-men-nursing-...
[2] http://www.menteach.org/
[3] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/shortage_of_minorit...
Maybe you're not old enough, but I am and I remember a huge stigma against men who wanted to become nurses because it was a job "for women" and what kind of man would want to do that kind of thing.
> huge stigma against men who wanted to become nurses because it was a job "for women" and what kind of man would want to do that kind of thing.
...and that's exactly the kind of label that women slaps on tech jobs. "What kind of woman would want to {drive race cars,work 60 hour weeks coding,debug java threads,maintain virtual server farms}"
And there you have it. It's clearly the oppressive white males' fault.
...and that's exactly the kind of label that women slaps on tech jobs. "What kind of woman would want to {drive race cars,work 60 hour weeks coding,debug java threads,maintain virtual server farms}"
And there you have it. It's clearly the oppressive white males' fault.
It's clearly the oppressive white males' fault.
The general public have no idea what "debug java threads" or "maintain virtual server farms" means, and being a programmer isn't particularly associated with long work days. It's also quite a stretch to call driving a race car a 'tech job'.
I think you need to reconsider your perspective on the issue.
The general public have no idea what "debug java threads" or "maintain virtual server farms" means, and being a programmer isn't particularly associated with long work days. It's also quite a stretch to call driving a race car a 'tech job'.
I think you need to reconsider your perspective on the issue.
"and that's exactly the kind of label that women slaps on tech jobs"
what kind of world are you living in because it's not one I've visited.
what kind of world are you living in because it's not one I've visited.
Actually it is what I remember from most girls in high school (late nineties): they want to work "with people instead of machines". It's a stigma that existed then in girls' minds and presumably still does, at least where I live.
I'm all for more women in tech, even if only to make the workforce more diverse. I'm also all for more minorities in tech, sure. Where I live, working in a tech job means 95% of youf colleagues will be white, male, middle class thirty-year olds.
But I have a gut feeling that at least in my environment, it's the fault of young women's mindset, not of "the system".
I'm all for more women in tech, even if only to make the workforce more diverse. I'm also all for more minorities in tech, sure. Where I live, working in a tech job means 95% of youf colleagues will be white, male, middle class thirty-year olds.
But I have a gut feeling that at least in my environment, it's the fault of young women's mindset, not of "the system".
That's not at all the same kind of thing. Here's some male nurses talking about their experiences:
http://allnurses.com/nursing-career-advice/you-ashamed-being...
""" I'm not "ashamed" of being an RN but it's hard when you are a guy and around other people that are uninformed about nursing. I dont use the term "nurse" because many people associate that term with a variety of menial jobs. I tell them I'm an RN. Even that doesnt register with many people. Of course being a guy I'm always asked "when are you starting med school?" or I get a veiled smirk and they say something like "oh you're a male nurse.." as if I'm a pariah or something. """
""" I'm not "ashamed" of being an RN but it's hard when you are a guy and around other people that are uninformed about nursing. I dont use the term "nurse" because many people associate that term with a variety of menial jobs. I tell them I'm an RN. Even that doesnt register with many people. Of course being a guy I'm always asked "when are you starting med school?" or I get a veiled smirk and they say something like "oh you're a male nurse.." as if I'm a pariah or something. """
Looking at it in terms of "fault" is particularly unhelpful -- and irrelevant to what most organizations, including the one that is the subject of this thread, looking to break down cultural barriers are doing.
Maybe we should be asking why so many boys are being pressured into hacking?
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. The question you ask is a good one, though you are jumping to some conclusions. I think it may very well be that there should be a "male nurse initiative", or at least that the lack of one doesn't somehow dictate the ethics and obligations of our field.
Possibly I am jumping to conclusions. I have nothing against females in tech. I strongly believe anyone should be able to pursue whatever they want.
My local hacker's space hosts coding dojos to teach children how to code. There is no special treatment given to girls in these. Everyone is welcome and encouraged. The dojo organizers are conscious of making sure there is a good representation of female teachers/mentors in the program. That is a different -- and more effective -- approach to this issue. The difference seems subtle, yet it's key.
I'm male and I knit. It's something my Mom taught me when I was young and it's stuck with me. Yet I hate when my gender is made such a big deal here. I'm not a male knitter, I'm just a knitter. I don't want to talk about my gender and how great it is I have pursued this hobby, I want to talk about the hobby. I can't help but think females would feel similar to programs like this.
My local hacker's space hosts coding dojos to teach children how to code. There is no special treatment given to girls in these. Everyone is welcome and encouraged. The dojo organizers are conscious of making sure there is a good representation of female teachers/mentors in the program. That is a different -- and more effective -- approach to this issue. The difference seems subtle, yet it's key.
I'm male and I knit. It's something my Mom taught me when I was young and it's stuck with me. Yet I hate when my gender is made such a big deal here. I'm not a male knitter, I'm just a knitter. I don't want to talk about my gender and how great it is I have pursued this hobby, I want to talk about the hobby. I can't help but think females would feel similar to programs like this.
[deleted]
If by tons, you mean 9%, then yes, there are tons of male nurses. Many are nurse anesthetists, which isn't what most people think of when they think "nurse". (Anesthetists also earn an extra hundred grand a year, on average.)
http://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupat...
http://www.census.gov/people/io/files/Men_in_Nursing_Occupat...
It is not helpful that "nursing" is an explicitly gendered term. And despite that, the fraction of nurses who are male is climbing steadily.
In what way is "nursing" explicitly gendered? Obviously one of its definitions necessarily refers specifically to women, e.g. "wet nurse," but that's the only one, and that's simply an issue of mammary glands. I was under the impression that the word comes from a contraction of the word "nourish" and doesn't have any explicit gender association.
"The first instance in English of nurse occurred in the early thirteenth century as the Anglo-Norman nurice, derived from the fifth-century post-Classical Latin nutrice, a wet-nurse."
What's the goal? A 50% gender ratio in all fields?
Just trying to understand the mindset of a SJW.
Just trying to understand the mindset of a SJW.
But Tulsa Codes would exist for logistical and practical reasons (it makes sense to organize people who already live in an area).
Girls Code is associated (fairly or not) with an ideological movement to correct for oppression and privilege that exists in our society. People who disagree with this movement will of course post about it when they see these articles.
Girls Code is associated (fairly or not) with an ideological movement to correct for oppression and privilege that exists in our society. People who disagree with this movement will of course post about it when they see these articles.
Yes. Exactly my point. The problem people have with "Girls Code" is that accepting it requires them to accept that women have been at some point treated unfairly.
I personally have no issue with "Black Girls Code" or any other groups like that -- mostly because any work done to educate more people (of any gender, race, sexuality, whatever) about what we do is a positive.
Moreover its important that people who decide to contribute in this way (teachers, mentors, etc) feel like they are helping a group they care deeply about and/or can identify with.
Having said that I do wish we had more events targeting all kinds of youth with the goal of changing the mentality of future developers/engineers. If they learn in diverse groups (including some level of age diversity, preferably) I feel they'd have a better shot at creating a 'new normal' for the future.
Moreover its important that people who decide to contribute in this way (teachers, mentors, etc) feel like they are helping a group they care deeply about and/or can identify with.
Having said that I do wish we had more events targeting all kinds of youth with the goal of changing the mentality of future developers/engineers. If they learn in diverse groups (including some level of age diversity, preferably) I feel they'd have a better shot at creating a 'new normal' for the future.
[deleted]
> Many women SIMPLY do not code for the same reason many men do not code.
Well, yes, I suppose this is true. If you pick a random woman who cannot code, that is probably the reason.
What about the women who have been driven out of coding simply because they happen to be female? It's something I have personally witnessed, both in the education system, and in commercial settings. There are real problems here, problems that you through your good fortune are not adversely affected by and in fact could go through your whole life without even knowing that they exist.
> Instead we can put our efforts into teaching everyone to code: "We Code."
If that's something you want to exist, then go make it - no one is stopping you, and the existence of "Girls Who Code" is in no way an impediment to your goals. I find it a little distasteful to ever say someone should give up on their personal project just because you think they should be doing it differently. Go do it then, if you're so sure you have the answers!
Well, yes, I suppose this is true. If you pick a random woman who cannot code, that is probably the reason.
What about the women who have been driven out of coding simply because they happen to be female? It's something I have personally witnessed, both in the education system, and in commercial settings. There are real problems here, problems that you through your good fortune are not adversely affected by and in fact could go through your whole life without even knowing that they exist.
> Instead we can put our efforts into teaching everyone to code: "We Code."
If that's something you want to exist, then go make it - no one is stopping you, and the existence of "Girls Who Code" is in no way an impediment to your goals. I find it a little distasteful to ever say someone should give up on their personal project just because you think they should be doing it differently. Go do it then, if you're so sure you have the answers!
A women cannot be driven out of coding by anyone other than herself. This is not a social thing. This is not hard core research requiring millions to get started. Only a PC, Stack Overflow and an internet connection are required. Even now on HN I cannot tell who is a girl or guy by their username, let alone the gender of the person who wrote the code that populates the webpage I read.
> A women cannot be driven out of coding by anyone other than herself.
What a disgustingly ignorant thing to say. The sheer obliviousness of your privilege in this regard is staggering. It's ridiculous to expect someone to put up with harassment and vitriol and, when they finally give up and leave — which is completely normal and something any normal person, including yourself, would do — say that it was all on them.
You may not even realize it, but your comment actually excuses all of the sexism and misogyny in the industry. It's putting the onus, and the blame, on the victim. That's awful.
What a disgustingly ignorant thing to say. The sheer obliviousness of your privilege in this regard is staggering. It's ridiculous to expect someone to put up with harassment and vitriol and, when they finally give up and leave — which is completely normal and something any normal person, including yourself, would do — say that it was all on them.
You may not even realize it, but your comment actually excuses all of the sexism and misogyny in the industry. It's putting the onus, and the blame, on the victim. That's awful.
Ceol. I am Black. I am African. I live in Orange County (3% Black - At best). I am 32. I started to learn how to code at 28. I am still not comfortable walking in a room where everybody is White. I feel like a fraud sometimes, when I tell people I know how to code (in PHP).
None of the above stopped me from slinging that code for several hours today.
I understand what being a minority is, but quite frankly most of the time that shit is in our head. If you don't care, then no one will. Somebody having an advantage does not mean you have a disadvantage, this is not a zero sum game. I am writing code for a product for women (Hint: Alexander Wang, diane von furstenberg, Tory Burch, Marc Jacobs kinda stuff). Just because women knows these brands more than I (in general) does not mean I should sit back.
It's hard, I get it, but what other choice do we have but roll up our sleeves and make our own mark and tell them "You see, mine count too," instead of "Make it easy for me to get in."
But I'll admit, I am very naive, and that has cost me greatly.
At any rate, apologies.
None of the above stopped me from slinging that code for several hours today.
I understand what being a minority is, but quite frankly most of the time that shit is in our head. If you don't care, then no one will. Somebody having an advantage does not mean you have a disadvantage, this is not a zero sum game. I am writing code for a product for women (Hint: Alexander Wang, diane von furstenberg, Tory Burch, Marc Jacobs kinda stuff). Just because women knows these brands more than I (in general) does not mean I should sit back.
It's hard, I get it, but what other choice do we have but roll up our sleeves and make our own mark and tell them "You see, mine count too," instead of "Make it easy for me to get in."
But I'll admit, I am very naive, and that has cost me greatly.
At any rate, apologies.
Being black is certainly not the same as being a woman, and just because you didn't experience enough discrimination to push you away doesn't mean others don't. If anything, that feeling of being uncomfortable should make you more sympathetic, but instead, you're stuck in this bootstraps mentality that anyone who couldn't follow through just didn't apply themselves enough or something.
> Somebody having an advantage does not mean you have a disadvantage, this is not a zero sum game.
Err, yeah it does. That's exactly what it means. If someone has an advantage over you, you are at a disadvantage. That's what the word "disadvantage" means.
> Just because women knows these brands more than I (in general) does not mean I should sit back.
No one is saying you should. That actually has nothing to do with this. No one is asking for work to be segregated; in fact, they're asking for the exact opposite.
> "You see, mine count too," instead of "Make it easy for me to get in."
Why not both? Why not, "Stop treating me like shit and count mine." This isn't either-or.
> Somebody having an advantage does not mean you have a disadvantage, this is not a zero sum game.
Err, yeah it does. That's exactly what it means. If someone has an advantage over you, you are at a disadvantage. That's what the word "disadvantage" means.
> Just because women knows these brands more than I (in general) does not mean I should sit back.
No one is saying you should. That actually has nothing to do with this. No one is asking for work to be segregated; in fact, they're asking for the exact opposite.
> "You see, mine count too," instead of "Make it easy for me to get in."
Why not both? Why not, "Stop treating me like shit and count mine." This isn't either-or.
You know, Ceol, maybe you are right.
> Somebody having an advantage does not mean you have a disadvantage
Since the kind of advantage/disadvantage we are talking is relative, not absolute, yes, it does.
Since the kind of advantage/disadvantage we are talking is relative, not absolute, yes, it does.
You're conflating coding with the culture behind it. And even the culture isn't uniform, it's divided into many different subcultures.
For all intents and purposes, there's nothing stopping a woman from learning how to program, contribute to open source and engage in community. A lot of people, male and female alike, operate under a pseudonym. Unless you're a celebrity, it's generally smarter for plenty of reasons, including risk management (something contemporary feminists don't seem to comprehend) and OPSEC.
Even if you do use your real name and explicitly denote your sex as female, you'll still survive. You certainly aren't immune from trolling. No one is. But frankly most cases of "harassment and vitriol" I've read about (on the Geek Feminism Wiki, for instance) tend to be mostly about offended sensibilities.
This isn't victim blaming. It's being realistic.
For all intents and purposes, there's nothing stopping a woman from learning how to program, contribute to open source and engage in community. A lot of people, male and female alike, operate under a pseudonym. Unless you're a celebrity, it's generally smarter for plenty of reasons, including risk management (something contemporary feminists don't seem to comprehend) and OPSEC.
Even if you do use your real name and explicitly denote your sex as female, you'll still survive. You certainly aren't immune from trolling. No one is. But frankly most cases of "harassment and vitriol" I've read about (on the Geek Feminism Wiki, for instance) tend to be mostly about offended sensibilities.
This isn't victim blaming. It's being realistic.
> For all intents and purposes, there's nothing stopping a woman from learning how to program, contribute to open source and engage in community.
Except the community, which is generally hostile towards women. Sure, someone can learn how to program on their own without ever interacting with the programming community, but that means shutting them off from a huge and helpful resource.
> A lot of people, male and female alike, operate under a pseudonym.
"It's fine as long as you never say you're a woman!" Yeah, that's indicative of a friendly culture.
>Unless you're a celebrity, it's generally smarter for plenty of reasons, including risk management (something contemporary feminists don't seem to comprehend) and OPSEC.
Aside from all your open source work never being attributable to yourself, sure. It's totally smarter. I'm sure no one ever contributes to open source projects with the intent of getting their name out. And your little aside to "contemporary feminists" (ironically in the same comment where you complain about generalizing cultures) just reveals your true intention in this discussion.
> ...tend to be mostly about offended sensibilities.
Ah, here we go. The "you're just too sensitive" argument. As though not wanting to be hurt or harassed or bothered is a bad thing. As though the culture of trolling and adolescent behavior that permeates the programming community should remain the status quo, and anyone who calls for change just doesn't have thick enough skin.
You sure do bring some unique and insightful contributions.
Except the community, which is generally hostile towards women. Sure, someone can learn how to program on their own without ever interacting with the programming community, but that means shutting them off from a huge and helpful resource.
> A lot of people, male and female alike, operate under a pseudonym.
"It's fine as long as you never say you're a woman!" Yeah, that's indicative of a friendly culture.
>Unless you're a celebrity, it's generally smarter for plenty of reasons, including risk management (something contemporary feminists don't seem to comprehend) and OPSEC.
Aside from all your open source work never being attributable to yourself, sure. It's totally smarter. I'm sure no one ever contributes to open source projects with the intent of getting their name out. And your little aside to "contemporary feminists" (ironically in the same comment where you complain about generalizing cultures) just reveals your true intention in this discussion.
> ...tend to be mostly about offended sensibilities.
Ah, here we go. The "you're just too sensitive" argument. As though not wanting to be hurt or harassed or bothered is a bad thing. As though the culture of trolling and adolescent behavior that permeates the programming community should remain the status quo, and anyone who calls for change just doesn't have thick enough skin.
You sure do bring some unique and insightful contributions.
The "you're just too sensitive" argument is a valid argument. I don't want to end up publicly shamed for jokes I make in private conversation.
The only way you're going to be shamed is if you really didn't make them in private conversation. Making them as you sit around a bunch of people in the middle of a conference, or in the middle of your office where everyone can hear you, or on your public twitter account is not a private conversation. Just because you directed it to someone does not make it private.
Have you heard of Kathy Sierra?
> disgustingly ignorant[....] sheer obliviousness[...] privilege[....] awful.
Do not expect shaming attempts to substitute for an argument here. Taking offense can't make you right.
There's the industry and then there's the calling. If they share my obsession, where is their mountain of hobby projects for getting it out of their system when their day jobs do not?
Do not expect shaming attempts to substitute for an argument here. Taking offense can't make you right.
There's the industry and then there's the calling. If they share my obsession, where is their mountain of hobby projects for getting it out of their system when their day jobs do not?
>What a disgustingly ignorant thing to say
Was that intended as a warning for the rest of your post?
>It's ridiculous to expect someone to put up with harassment and vitriol
Of course it is. And since that does not happen any more frequently in tech than anywhere else, and does not happen any more frequently to women than to men, I have a hard time seeing the relevance.
>You may not even realize it, but your comment actually excuses all of the sexism and misogyny in the industry
You may not even realize it, but your comment actually makes women less likely to participate in tech. When people constantly make a huge fuss about imaginary misogyny, women start feeling like they are blamed by all the normal people, even though they had nothing to do with it and are actually normal people themselves.
Was that intended as a warning for the rest of your post?
>It's ridiculous to expect someone to put up with harassment and vitriol
Of course it is. And since that does not happen any more frequently in tech than anywhere else, and does not happen any more frequently to women than to men, I have a hard time seeing the relevance.
>You may not even realize it, but your comment actually excuses all of the sexism and misogyny in the industry
You may not even realize it, but your comment actually makes women less likely to participate in tech. When people constantly make a huge fuss about imaginary misogyny, women start feeling like they are blamed by all the normal people, even though they had nothing to do with it and are actually normal people themselves.
> and does not happen any more frequently to women than to men
You might as well be stating the world isn't round, or the sky isn't blue, or any other plainly obvious fact that has been proven countless times. Of course, you'll say sexism in the industry really doesn't exist, and ignore the thousands of women detailing their experiences[1] on the subject, so this isn't really for you. This is for the random reader who might not be as pigheaded and oblivious.
> When people constantly make a huge fuss about imaginary misogyny
Did "imaginary" suddenly change meanings? Because either it did, or your head is so far in the sand, you've been ignoring some of the most[2] recent[3] incidents.[4] If you haven't been paying attention to the programming and tech community, you really shouldn't be speaking about it, you know? It just makes you look like a jackass, and you wouldn't want that, right?
[1]: http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/09/sexism-i...
[2]: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/11/221052...
[3]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/09/10/pax_dickinso...
[4]: http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3895-ignant-halloween-...
You might as well be stating the world isn't round, or the sky isn't blue, or any other plainly obvious fact that has been proven countless times. Of course, you'll say sexism in the industry really doesn't exist, and ignore the thousands of women detailing their experiences[1] on the subject, so this isn't really for you. This is for the random reader who might not be as pigheaded and oblivious.
> When people constantly make a huge fuss about imaginary misogyny
Did "imaginary" suddenly change meanings? Because either it did, or your head is so far in the sand, you've been ignoring some of the most[2] recent[3] incidents.[4] If you haven't been paying attention to the programming and tech community, you really shouldn't be speaking about it, you know? It just makes you look like a jackass, and you wouldn't want that, right?
[1]: http://www.chicagonow.com/wild-side-chicago/2013/09/sexism-i...
[2]: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/11/221052...
[3]: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/09/10/pax_dickinso...
[4]: http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3895-ignant-halloween-...
>Of course, you'll say sexism in the industry really doesn't exist
No, I say it is rare, no more common than in any other industry, and goes in both directions. But debating what I say rather than a strawman is too much effort right?
>you've been ignoring some of the most[2] recent[3] incidents.[4]
None of those are examples of misogyny. If you do not understand the meaning of the word, you can use a dictionary to find out.
>It just makes you look like a jackass, and you wouldn't want that, right?
I don't mind if a histrionic sjw with a victim complex thinks I am a jackass.
No, I say it is rare, no more common than in any other industry, and goes in both directions. But debating what I say rather than a strawman is too much effort right?
>you've been ignoring some of the most[2] recent[3] incidents.[4]
None of those are examples of misogyny. If you do not understand the meaning of the word, you can use a dictionary to find out.
>It just makes you look like a jackass, and you wouldn't want that, right?
I don't mind if a histrionic sjw with a victim complex thinks I am a jackass.
> A women cannot be driven out of coding by anyone other than herself. This is not a social thing.
Anxiety toward certain fields driven by experiences in formative years -- including experiences of other people's attitudes, which may include bias in perceived racial or gender abilities or roles -- is a real and often socially-induced thing, and the most well-known manifestation is math anxiety.
Its not really hard to see how this can relate to programming, particularly given the close relation between programming and math.
Anxiety toward certain fields driven by experiences in formative years -- including experiences of other people's attitudes, which may include bias in perceived racial or gender abilities or roles -- is a real and often socially-induced thing, and the most well-known manifestation is math anxiety.
Its not really hard to see how this can relate to programming, particularly given the close relation between programming and math.
There are real problems here? What are these problems?
Did you even read the article or any of the comments in this thread?
Your intentions are good, but in practical terms, you are wrong.
The creation of things like "Girls Who Code" is not a statement that this is the way things should be but a statement that this is the way things have to be -- for now. Just about everyone will say -- and do so sincerely -- that they are totally for more females to get into programming, if those females want to be involved.
But the problem isn't the individual. It's the institution. The challenges that the most motivated women have faced when entering an ostensibly gender-agnostic situation have been well-documented and talked about...So creating an environment like "Girls Who Code" is a pro-active force, rather than just "let the pieces fall where they may" approach, because people who have tried that have failed.
To put it in a non-gendered context, saying that "women who code should just join the field and work their hardest" is like saying, "people who really need vacation time should join a company with 'no vacation policy'" and take a vacation whenever they want. After all, if the company says it has no policy against taking vacation, and everyone would like to take vacation when they feel like it...what's to stop people from taking the vacation days they need?
And yet, somehow, that doesn't happen, in practice.
The creation of things like "Girls Who Code" is not a statement that this is the way things should be but a statement that this is the way things have to be -- for now. Just about everyone will say -- and do so sincerely -- that they are totally for more females to get into programming, if those females want to be involved.
But the problem isn't the individual. It's the institution. The challenges that the most motivated women have faced when entering an ostensibly gender-agnostic situation have been well-documented and talked about...So creating an environment like "Girls Who Code" is a pro-active force, rather than just "let the pieces fall where they may" approach, because people who have tried that have failed.
To put it in a non-gendered context, saying that "women who code should just join the field and work their hardest" is like saying, "people who really need vacation time should join a company with 'no vacation policy'" and take a vacation whenever they want. After all, if the company says it has no policy against taking vacation, and everyone would like to take vacation when they feel like it...what's to stop people from taking the vacation days they need?
And yet, somehow, that doesn't happen, in practice.
> The creation of things like "Girls Who Code" is not a statement that this is the way things should be but a statement that this is the way things have to be -- for now.
And I think the response is a disagreement over the way things have to be for now.
And I think the response is a disagreement over the way things have to be for now.
I don't quite understand the structure of your argument.
First you claim it will not work because you cannot imagine "Men Nurse" would succeed. And then you claim that the reason why many women is because they were not exposed to programming as a child, a trait that is shared with many males.
This implies that the reason there is a short-fall in men in nursing is the similar to why there is a short-fall of women in programming. I don't believe this is the case, especially when you consider that your stated reason for the short-fall in women is that they are not exposed to programming as a child, implying the reason that men do not get into nursing is because they were exposed to less nursing like activities as a child. Which seems frankly kinda silly.
Furthermore, if we accept your premise that the reason that many women do not code is because of lack of childhood exposure, then clearly the massive skew in demographics right now implies that there is something about how we tend to do things that skew exposure towards boys. And if we're not careful about it, then if we just did a "We Code" we could very likely just include the same skewing towards boys, and we're right back to where we began.
I wanted to post something like this the last time something like this came up, but here we go. Rising tides raise all boats. But patching the leaky ones and installing a bilge pump will certainly help the floundering ones more. And right now people are deciding that there are some boats that are having trouble, and want to fix that first.
First you claim it will not work because you cannot imagine "Men Nurse" would succeed. And then you claim that the reason why many women is because they were not exposed to programming as a child, a trait that is shared with many males.
This implies that the reason there is a short-fall in men in nursing is the similar to why there is a short-fall of women in programming. I don't believe this is the case, especially when you consider that your stated reason for the short-fall in women is that they are not exposed to programming as a child, implying the reason that men do not get into nursing is because they were exposed to less nursing like activities as a child. Which seems frankly kinda silly.
Furthermore, if we accept your premise that the reason that many women do not code is because of lack of childhood exposure, then clearly the massive skew in demographics right now implies that there is something about how we tend to do things that skew exposure towards boys. And if we're not careful about it, then if we just did a "We Code" we could very likely just include the same skewing towards boys, and we're right back to where we began.
I wanted to post something like this the last time something like this came up, but here we go. Rising tides raise all boats. But patching the leaky ones and installing a bilge pump will certainly help the floundering ones more. And right now people are deciding that there are some boats that are having trouble, and want to fix that first.
Why is this nursing thing coming up so often? There are many more women than you think in US graduate CS programs; however, many are not from the United States.
[deleted]
It sounds like Harvey Mudd's program improves female enrollment but it's just seems like a good idea in general
The quick program for Harvey Mudd seems to be 1) Make the problems more practical in application (ie controlling a robot, modelling a disease) 2) Giving students choices in what problems they are interested in 3) Segmenting students according to skill set, thus putting people who have been programming in another course that will match their pace better and allowing students who are more new to have their own pace.
The quick program for Harvey Mudd seems to be 1) Make the problems more practical in application (ie controlling a robot, modelling a disease) 2) Giving students choices in what problems they are interested in 3) Segmenting students according to skill set, thus putting people who have been programming in another course that will match their pace better and allowing students who are more new to have their own pace.
I think Harvey Mudd's approach is fantastic. I love the idea of two separate tracks for getting people to code. It allows people to take an academic risk which they normally wouldn't be able to take for fear of destroying their GPA.
I think this is a fundamental problem with STEM programs in general. Why have grades and tracks at all? The important thing is to learn the material, and not what grade you got on a test at some arbitrary point in time. This is what is so brilliant about MOOCs like Khan Academy. No grades, and you can repeat the material until you know it.
I think this is a fundamental problem with STEM programs in general. Why have grades and tracks at all? The important thing is to learn the material, and not what grade you got on a test at some arbitrary point in time. This is what is so brilliant about MOOCs like Khan Academy. No grades, and you can repeat the material until you know it.
The problem with MOOCs is that they have a pretty low retention rate. Sure you can repeat the material until you know it, but how many people actually will? The benefit of having a physical class is that you can turn to the professor or TAs for help if you're having trouble. It's also more difficult to completely fall behind because there are milestones in place (tests, assignments, projects, etc.). This isn't to say that MOOCs don't have their place, but they are not a replacement for the traditional classroom model.
> The problem with MOOCs is that they have a pretty low retention rate.
Actually, I think that's one of the strengths of MOOCs (or, at least, a symptom of its strengths.)
> The benefit of having a physical class is that you can turn to the professor or TAs for help if you're having trouble. It's also more difficult to completely fall behind because there are milestones in place (tests, assignments, projects, etc.).
The MOOCs I've been in EdX and Coursera all have had both milestones of the type described, and TAs to go to for help.
What they don't have is a large up-front cost to enter, so there's no reason for people not to try out classes when they aren't completely certain are the right fit -- and little reason, even if the fit is good, not to drop out of one iteration and come back and take the course again if other life events that do have a cost for not dealing with now erupt.
So, yeah, a higher rate of people starting MOOCs and not completing them compared to traditional courses is to be expected -- and that's a good thing.
Actually, I think that's one of the strengths of MOOCs (or, at least, a symptom of its strengths.)
> The benefit of having a physical class is that you can turn to the professor or TAs for help if you're having trouble. It's also more difficult to completely fall behind because there are milestones in place (tests, assignments, projects, etc.).
The MOOCs I've been in EdX and Coursera all have had both milestones of the type described, and TAs to go to for help.
What they don't have is a large up-front cost to enter, so there's no reason for people not to try out classes when they aren't completely certain are the right fit -- and little reason, even if the fit is good, not to drop out of one iteration and come back and take the course again if other life events that do have a cost for not dealing with now erupt.
So, yeah, a higher rate of people starting MOOCs and not completing them compared to traditional courses is to be expected -- and that's a good thing.
Yes, that's definitely a problem, particularly the way most classes on services like Udacity are done. You can't just videotape the lectures and translate the homework/quizzes into a MOOC and expect that it's going to be compelling.
Khan Academy definitely gets this right where other MOOCs really fail. The quizzes are actually quite engaging and the 'gamified' point giving, despite being incredibly cheesy, really seems to work.
I agree that there is no replacement for TAs and the professor, and I think that's where a lot of confusion about MOOCs stems from. This is where 'flip' teaching comes about. Instead of wasting time doing daily lesson planning and grading papers, the TAs and the professor spend their time helping students out who are having trouble. The students can watch/re-watch pre-recorded lectures and then take quizzes during class time which can be graded by the computer.
Khan Academy definitely gets this right where other MOOCs really fail. The quizzes are actually quite engaging and the 'gamified' point giving, despite being incredibly cheesy, really seems to work.
I agree that there is no replacement for TAs and the professor, and I think that's where a lot of confusion about MOOCs stems from. This is where 'flip' teaching comes about. Instead of wasting time doing daily lesson planning and grading papers, the TAs and the professor spend their time helping students out who are having trouble. The students can watch/re-watch pre-recorded lectures and then take quizzes during class time which can be graded by the computer.
As someone who went to Harvey Mudd I can attest that the program is very well designed. All Mudd students (CS/Eng/Math/Physics/Bio/Chem) are required to take some computer science courses. And theyve done a tremendous job at gearing those courses for people who have never coded in their life, and people who have been coding since they were 5.
I think it's also great because it encourages students majoring in other science and engineering fields to learn CS and see how it is applicable to their field of study. I also like how they try to make it fun. My intro CS classes were really dry and boring. I only pushed through them because I was set on being a computer engineering major and knew I would like the more advanced classes.
[deleted]
One of that impresses me, and kind of amuses me, is how PG will talk these issues out, even though the danger of being misquoted or misinterpreted is much higher than the chances of being appreciated, especially for someone in his position. The phrase "God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers?", as a standalone statement, is ripe for ripping apart. But I think in its context, it only expresses his frustration at the problem, which is much, much better than the apathy expressed by others. It's a problem with much more societal and institutional inertia behind it than just VC men looking down on female entrepreneurs, or even tech companies being discriminatory. He's absolutely right to say that the focus should be on early education, and if anyone knows the best way (on a timetable that would satisfy current observers) to implement that, then they should speak up.
In terms of current harmful perceptions that can be stamped out in the short-term...I think the belief that females aren't genetically cut out to be programmers is one. The "world's first computer programmer" was a woman and COBOL, of course, was invented by Grace Hopper. These women were pioneers in early computing at a time when women were still struggling to be recognized as equal citizens. To argue that women can't make it as hackers is like arguing, post-Jackie Robinson, that blacks can't develop professional baseball skills. The lack of women computer scientists and programmers today more likely point to institutional/cultural problems rather than genetic ones.
In terms of current harmful perceptions that can be stamped out in the short-term...I think the belief that females aren't genetically cut out to be programmers is one. The "world's first computer programmer" was a woman and COBOL, of course, was invented by Grace Hopper. These women were pioneers in early computing at a time when women were still struggling to be recognized as equal citizens. To argue that women can't make it as hackers is like arguing, post-Jackie Robinson, that blacks can't develop professional baseball skills. The lack of women computer scientists and programmers today more likely point to institutional/cultural problems rather than genetic ones.
Once again: after establishing bona fides by saying "fuck Vallywag and everything they stand for", I feel like I need to say that Graham wasn't hugely distorted.
He was asked whether YC discriminates against women. The obvious subtext of that question is that there's a large imbalance between men & women among YC founders. He could have said "no, we don't discriminate; I don't know why the imbalance among YC founders exist or exactly how to correct it, but here are some reasons I don't think our process is what creates it". He does not say that.
Instead, he composes a small essay about the roots of gender imbalance in the industry off the top of his head, and that impromptu essay manages to reinforce a lot of young- white- male privilege. "If women were going to be good coders", he seems to a reasonable reader to be saying, "they would have found coding on their own". But that's not true: it conflates affinity and aptitude with opportunity and support. It also conflates "living and breathing technology" with "ability to masterfully execute a role"; the correlation between living the life and ability to execute is dubious at best.
It does not help that Paul Graham has said other things in the past that also reinforce privilege.
"Privilege" is a dirty word on HN (I guess it makes me some kind of "nth wave feminist" to use it), but it isn't an indictment. Nobody is saying privilege needs to be rooted out and eliminated. How could you ever do that, anyways? The point is not to brand young white dudes with the word, but simply to recognize that it exists, and be wary about attitudes that reinforce it and allow it to feed on itself. That's the concern I have with the interview The Information published.
He was asked whether YC discriminates against women. The obvious subtext of that question is that there's a large imbalance between men & women among YC founders. He could have said "no, we don't discriminate; I don't know why the imbalance among YC founders exist or exactly how to correct it, but here are some reasons I don't think our process is what creates it". He does not say that.
Instead, he composes a small essay about the roots of gender imbalance in the industry off the top of his head, and that impromptu essay manages to reinforce a lot of young- white- male privilege. "If women were going to be good coders", he seems to a reasonable reader to be saying, "they would have found coding on their own". But that's not true: it conflates affinity and aptitude with opportunity and support. It also conflates "living and breathing technology" with "ability to masterfully execute a role"; the correlation between living the life and ability to execute is dubious at best.
It does not help that Paul Graham has said other things in the past that also reinforce privilege.
"Privilege" is a dirty word on HN (I guess it makes me some kind of "nth wave feminist" to use it), but it isn't an indictment. Nobody is saying privilege needs to be rooted out and eliminated. How could you ever do that, anyways? The point is not to brand young white dudes with the word, but simply to recognize that it exists, and be wary about attitudes that reinforce it and allow it to feed on itself. That's the concern I have with the interview The Information published.
I'm not sure this is a fair assessment. The (admittedly likely butchered at this point) quote:
> If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own. Then if you go look at the bios of successful founders this is invariably the case, they were all hacking on computers at age 13. What that means is the problem is 10 years upstream of us.
In the very next sentence pg states that the lack of interest in young girls at age 13 is an actual problem. If he had some inherent belief that "girls just don't like computers" thing (ie, the great "male tech misogyny" strawman) he wouldn't cast it as a problem to be solved.
> If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own. Then if you go look at the bios of successful founders this is invariably the case, they were all hacking on computers at age 13. What that means is the problem is 10 years upstream of us.
In the very next sentence pg states that the lack of interest in young girls at age 13 is an actual problem. If he had some inherent belief that "girls just don't like computers" thing (ie, the great "male tech misogyny" strawman) he wouldn't cast it as a problem to be solved.
Once again: misogyny is a specific thing. It connotes an overt bias against women. That bias, while definitely present in our industry (and for some reason especially well-represented on HN) is rare. I would be shocked to find out that Paul Graham was a misogynist: it would not fit the rest of the picture that I have of him from what he writes.
But the absence of bias against women is inadequate innoculation against gender imbalance in the industry. It doesn't correct for bias towards men. That bias is pervasive. It's easy to see why: it involves saying nice things about people who do good work, and then simply generalizing it out a bit. The end result is a system of privilege for people who "fit the mold" for successful startup hackers.
But the absence of bias against women is inadequate innoculation against gender imbalance in the industry. It doesn't correct for bias towards men. That bias is pervasive. It's easy to see why: it involves saying nice things about people who do good work, and then simply generalizing it out a bit. The end result is a system of privilege for people who "fit the mold" for successful startup hackers.
It sounded to me like you took pg's quote to mean he felt was blind to the factor opportunity takes towards gaining affinity for a subject. If this were true (and his next sentence seems to invalidate this) it would mean he felt that women were less capable, inherently, of appreciating computers and programming. At the risk of splitting hairs, this would be a misogynistic viewpoint. This is the narrative these clowns want people to believe anyway, that someone like pg is a 1-dimensional cartoon villain who thinks "girls' brains can't code, what am I supposed to do about it?!"
It's easier at this point to just say what I do and don't actually think. I don't think Paul Graham believes women are intrinsically less capable than men. I do think he has a blind spot regarding privilege and specifically the way his reputational energy reinforces privilege, and another related blind spot about how that fortified privilege impedes the progress of women in our field.
Another way to put it would be, if Paul Graham acted personally as the hiring manager for every YC company, I wouldn't be too concerned. But he's not: his thoughts about capability and aptitude are filtered through the brains of hundreds of (mostly young, male) nerds.
Another way to put it would be, if Paul Graham acted personally as the hiring manager for every YC company, I wouldn't be too concerned. But he's not: his thoughts about capability and aptitude are filtered through the brains of hundreds of (mostly young, male) nerds.
> I do think he has a blind spot regarding privilege and specifically the way his reputational energy reinforces privilege, and another related blind spot about how that fortified privilege impedes the progress of women in our field.
I don't know whether I agree or disagree with this (mostly, I just don't know what Paul Graham thinks about what he hasn't publicly spoken of), but this is a pretty serious claim to extrapolate from, as you wrote, an "impromptu essay".
I want to see meaningful change in the gender distribution/bias of this industry, but it's a shame that conversations about this frequently seem to contain detailed analyses of a reasonable person's "controversial remarks". It feeds a fire that shouldn't be fed.
I don't know whether I agree or disagree with this (mostly, I just don't know what Paul Graham thinks about what he hasn't publicly spoken of), but this is a pretty serious claim to extrapolate from, as you wrote, an "impromptu essay".
I want to see meaningful change in the gender distribution/bias of this industry, but it's a shame that conversations about this frequently seem to contain detailed analyses of a reasonable person's "controversial remarks". It feeds a fire that shouldn't be fed.
fair point and well put.
> "girls just don't like computers"
I believe* in something very similar – that girls have a lower natural inclination to computers and programming than boys have. Is that considered wrong or politically incorrect?
*believe = about 85% confidence
I believe* in something very similar – that girls have a lower natural inclination to computers and programming than boys have. Is that considered wrong or politically incorrect?
*believe = about 85% confidence
What does the word "natural" mean there?
That it's in the DNA. It's nature, npt nurture.
Nobody is saying privilege needs to be rooted out and eliminated.
I don't get the sense that you, personally, are saying such a thing, but a lot of the more radical, fringe elements in this conversation (who nevertheless seem to get a lot of air time) do seem to be saying such a thing.
I don't get the sense that you, personally, are saying such a thing, but a lot of the more radical, fringe elements in this conversation (who nevertheless seem to get a lot of air time) do seem to be saying such a thing.
OK, I'll just post what Valleywag excerpted, with the assumption that if any context is left out, it is in favor of the Valleywag author, with interjections of how I interpreted PG's words:
> I'm almost certain that we don't discriminate against female founders because I would know from looking at the ones we missed. [...]
OK, nothing bad here, assuming that the implication is that there aren't many female founders for him to discriminate against.
> The problem with that is I think, at least with technology companies, the people who are really good technology founders have a genuine deep interest in technology. In fact, I've heard startups say that they did not like to hire people who had only started programming when they became CS majors in college.
No argument here.
> If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own. Then if you go look at the bios of successful founders this is invariably the case, they were all hacking on computers at age 13.
OK, so this is the statement that reeks of privilege. And I agree, except if you don't consider what immediately follows:
> What that means is the problem is 10 years upstream of us. If we really wanted to fix this problem, what we would have to do is not encourage women to start startups now. It's already too late. What we should be doing is somehow changing the middle school computer science curriculum or something like that. God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers. I would have to stop and think about that.
So my interpretation of this was that PG implicitly acknowledges that boys have a privilege here, a privilege to explore computing at the formative age necessary to become a great hacker. For whatever reason, girls do not have that privilege in today's current society, and so PG proposes, as an example measure, to overhaul middle school curriculum.
OK, so PG didn't have any great revolutionary ideas on how to fix the problem of privilege, but it doesn't seem that was his expectation for the interview. What he said wasn't full of hope and sunshine too: for women who are at the entrepreneurial age right now, they've missed the optimal time to become a Steve Wozniak or Mark Zuckerberg. OK, that should raise objections of ageism, but it's not sexism, it's a statement of the shitty situation that girls have when it comes to exploring tech at a young age.
And what PG says is of course biased towards the importance of technical prowess, and frankly, I agree. Would Steve Jobs be anywhere if Woz wasn't the batshit-amazing young engineer that he was? Not at all. And so when PG says the problem of few female founders cannot be solved by just encouraging women to create startups -- without the necessary tech acumen...I think what he argues is reasonable from a technical standpoint. In terms of tech startups, it's not just ideas, but technical execution, and Apple is the very best example of that.
So I think PG is right to point out that "encourage more female-led startups" is more of a feel-good band-aid than a solution. We want more female-led startups and we want them to succeed. In PG's opinion, that kind of success -- which is a major longshot for men -- can only come from expanding the early opportunities for girls to get more interested in tech and science.
> I'm almost certain that we don't discriminate against female founders because I would know from looking at the ones we missed. [...]
OK, nothing bad here, assuming that the implication is that there aren't many female founders for him to discriminate against.
> The problem with that is I think, at least with technology companies, the people who are really good technology founders have a genuine deep interest in technology. In fact, I've heard startups say that they did not like to hire people who had only started programming when they became CS majors in college.
No argument here.
> If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own. Then if you go look at the bios of successful founders this is invariably the case, they were all hacking on computers at age 13.
OK, so this is the statement that reeks of privilege. And I agree, except if you don't consider what immediately follows:
> What that means is the problem is 10 years upstream of us. If we really wanted to fix this problem, what we would have to do is not encourage women to start startups now. It's already too late. What we should be doing is somehow changing the middle school computer science curriculum or something like that. God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers. I would have to stop and think about that.
So my interpretation of this was that PG implicitly acknowledges that boys have a privilege here, a privilege to explore computing at the formative age necessary to become a great hacker. For whatever reason, girls do not have that privilege in today's current society, and so PG proposes, as an example measure, to overhaul middle school curriculum.
OK, so PG didn't have any great revolutionary ideas on how to fix the problem of privilege, but it doesn't seem that was his expectation for the interview. What he said wasn't full of hope and sunshine too: for women who are at the entrepreneurial age right now, they've missed the optimal time to become a Steve Wozniak or Mark Zuckerberg. OK, that should raise objections of ageism, but it's not sexism, it's a statement of the shitty situation that girls have when it comes to exploring tech at a young age.
And what PG says is of course biased towards the importance of technical prowess, and frankly, I agree. Would Steve Jobs be anywhere if Woz wasn't the batshit-amazing young engineer that he was? Not at all. And so when PG says the problem of few female founders cannot be solved by just encouraging women to create startups -- without the necessary tech acumen...I think what he argues is reasonable from a technical standpoint. In terms of tech startups, it's not just ideas, but technical execution, and Apple is the very best example of that.
So I think PG is right to point out that "encourage more female-led startups" is more of a feel-good band-aid than a solution. We want more female-led startups and we want them to succeed. In PG's opinion, that kind of success -- which is a major longshot for men -- can only come from expanding the early opportunities for girls to get more interested in tech and science.
How is being interested in something a privilege?
> If someone was going to be really good at programming they would have found it on their own. Then if you go look at the bios of successful founders this is invariably the case, they were all hacking on computers at age 13.
I am by most standards a successful founder. I was not hacking on computers at age 13. Why not? My family could not afford a computer at age 13. I got my first computer at 15-16 by essentially fishing it out of a garbage can.
How long did it take me to write my first C program? About a year. Why? Because I was the only person in my (very, very small) hometown who had any affinity or interest in computers in general, let alone programming in particular.
That is why that statement "reeks of privilege."
I am by most standards a successful founder. I was not hacking on computers at age 13. Why not? My family could not afford a computer at age 13. I got my first computer at 15-16 by essentially fishing it out of a garbage can.
How long did it take me to write my first C program? About a year. Why? Because I was the only person in my (very, very small) hometown who had any affinity or interest in computers in general, let alone programming in particular.
That is why that statement "reeks of privilege."
There doesn't seem to be a gender component in the situation you described.
So? I was telling a story from my personal experience to try to demonstrate how that statement (in isolation) reeks of privilege. It does not reek of male privilege, which I'm admittedly less sensitive to than class privilege.
But imagine growing up surrounded by people telling you to "Stop with all that computer stuff. That's nerdy boy stuff. Boys won't like you if you're into that." Or parents who refuse to buy their daughter a computer for similar reasons. That is a story I've heard from plenty female engineers I know.
Does that count? I was trying to make my point more relatable. Sorry.
But imagine growing up surrounded by people telling you to "Stop with all that computer stuff. That's nerdy boy stuff. Boys won't like you if you're into that." Or parents who refuse to buy their daughter a computer for similar reasons. That is a story I've heard from plenty female engineers I know.
Does that count? I was trying to make my point more relatable. Sorry.
But if anything your own example seems to reaffirm pg's point. You fished a computer out of a garbage bin and therefore had some coding experience before university age. You found it on your own. PG observes that this is 'invariably' a quality of the most successful founders and therefore (presumably) one which he looks for in prospective founders.
Oh for fuck's sake.
Yeah, I'm not going to play Calvinball with you. Sorry!
I guess it was a privilege arguing with you.
To be honest, I didn't realize we were arguing until it turned into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&t=1m18s
Before that I thought I was just sharing a personal story with you to illustrate someone else's point.
Before that I thought I was just sharing a personal story with you to illustrate someone else's point.
No, because he's using an example from his own experience to rebut Paul Graham's (partial) explanation of gender imbalance at startups.
It isn't. The problem is, "interest" isn't the only concept he's talking about; he's actually referring to a tuple that includes interest, opportunity, and support.
I like your first paragraph. That said I dislike your second paragraph because of all the possible reasons to oppose discrimination, a pile of historical anecdotes is the least effective. You can run a morality argument, or philosophy, or some biochem neurology analysis, or ethics, or legality, or (modern, civilized) cultural incompatibility with discrimination, or even simple competitive economics argument like those who select inferior employees for irrational reasons will inevitably in the long run be crushed by more rationally managed companies. But anecdote anecdote anecdote isn't going to do it. I like where you're aiming, you're just not doin it right. That said at least you picked popular traditional anecdotes, although you could have picked more recent anecdotes like Radia Perlman or Limor Fried...
> To argue that women can't make it as hackers is like arguing, post-Jackie Robinson, that blacks can't develop professional baseball skills.
You might want to reword that last part slightly, maybe? winces
I feel I should warn you that if you use that argument, you may in some cases get a "Bell Curve" inspired response to do with average ability or performance of the genders / races. To enter the merit argument is to risk being bogged down in it unnecessarily: Even if women were 10% as likely as men to be good programmers, one still should not and should not be allowed to discriminate programmers on the basis of gender. Instead they should have their actual ability assessed, without anyone taking probabilistic short-cuts in thinking. (In other words, equality of opportunity)
You might want to reword that last part slightly, maybe? winces
I feel I should warn you that if you use that argument, you may in some cases get a "Bell Curve" inspired response to do with average ability or performance of the genders / races. To enter the merit argument is to risk being bogged down in it unnecessarily: Even if women were 10% as likely as men to be good programmers, one still should not and should not be allowed to discriminate programmers on the basis of gender. Instead they should have their actual ability assessed, without anyone taking probabilistic short-cuts in thinking. (In other words, equality of opportunity)
We don't even have to speculate whether x% of women can be as good as men. We know that for some time, women have been among the elite in computer science.
You argue that it's as simple as just doing merit-based analysis, which implies that because women are so scarce in the field, it's because they've failed these impartial merit based tests. I'm arguing that it's quite possible that these impartial merit based tests don't exist.
They don't even exist for men -- i.e. "it's not what you know but who you know".
You argue that it's as simple as just doing merit-based analysis, which implies that because women are so scarce in the field, it's because they've failed these impartial merit based tests. I'm arguing that it's quite possible that these impartial merit based tests don't exist.
They don't even exist for men -- i.e. "it's not what you know but who you know".
> You argue that it's as simple as just doing merit-based analysis, which implies that because women are so scarce in the field, it's because they've failed these impartial merit based tests. I'm arguing that it's quite possible that these impartial merit based tests don't exist.
Sorry, this isn't what I meant to imply at all. That was very much a "how things should be" rather than what things are like right now.
Sorry, this isn't what I meant to imply at all. That was very much a "how things should be" rather than what things are like right now.
My daughter doesn't code, but she and another friend of hers do a lot of work to find, get and set up game emulators and related wares.
Motivated to do light "sys admin" work, but not coding, I guess.
Motivated to do light "sys admin" work, but not coding, I guess.
Does they play Megadrive games? If so I know a really cool nerdy trick:
Sonic & Knuckles was a pretty awesome Sonic installment for the Megadrive that had a really weird cartridge. On top, it had a flip-open cartridge slot... You could plug in Sonic 2 or Sonic 3 to play through those previously existing games with the Knuckles character. Awesome!
So how do you play the games like that on your emulator? Turns out it's really simple:
> cat snk.bin sonic3.bin > sonic3nk.bin
Or on Windows, as I first learnt it (I had no idea what the command actually did back then, it was magic to me):
> copy /b snk.bin + sonic3.bin sonic3nk.bin
Suddenly I have a brand new game to play!
How it works: When you plug another cartridge into the top of Sonic & Knuckles the console sees both games combined as a contiguous block of memory, which is equivalent to concatenating together the binary dumps of the cartridges.
More details about this are available on this slightly horrific but very thorough webpage: http://www.emulationzone.org/projects/s&k/thesis.htm
Sonic & Knuckles was a pretty awesome Sonic installment for the Megadrive that had a really weird cartridge. On top, it had a flip-open cartridge slot... You could plug in Sonic 2 or Sonic 3 to play through those previously existing games with the Knuckles character. Awesome!
So how do you play the games like that on your emulator? Turns out it's really simple:
> cat snk.bin sonic3.bin > sonic3nk.bin
Or on Windows, as I first learnt it (I had no idea what the command actually did back then, it was magic to me):
> copy /b snk.bin + sonic3.bin sonic3nk.bin
Suddenly I have a brand new game to play!
How it works: When you plug another cartridge into the top of Sonic & Knuckles the console sees both games combined as a contiguous block of memory, which is equivalent to concatenating together the binary dumps of the cartridges.
More details about this are available on this slightly horrific but very thorough webpage: http://www.emulationzone.org/projects/s&k/thesis.htm
Very cool - thanks for sharing!
I got into programming by figuring out how to cheat at games when I was small; another common route is writing mods/addons (which I also did, later on). Don't knock the instincts even though it's not writing code!
Nurture that. It's how a lot of developers get started: by tinkering and tooling.
I hope PG doesn't get too frightened by the press from this and stops being his usual honest plainspoken self. We need more people like him trying to portray an accurate map of the territory, rather than being afraid of how quotes may be spun by cheap journalists.
If he takes his own advice[1], he'd be hard pressed to say anything at all. When people furiously accuse you of misogyny for not repeating the party line, there's no good faith discussion possible.
[1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html
[1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html
"Party line" is an interesting choice of words. There's definitely some unhealthy groupthink going on that's gaining in power. It's never been easier to have something said taken out of context and have your reputation dragged through the mud by people who are professional social justice warriors and not much else (I doubt Nitasha Tiku could program "hello world")
Maybe it's due to the rise of twitter and the ease of taking things out of context. It seems to fuel tabloid "journalists" like Sam Biddle who sit around on twitter all day, looking for tweets that he can read X-ism into.
The sad thing is that if Paul Graham were an employee of a tech company, he'd probably be fired by now[1]. The room for thought and discussion is much smaller than it used to be, even though we have more tools for self-expression than ever before.
Moldbug saw this happening and he decided that "America is a Communist Country". I think that's a bit strong, but I agree that at least the progressive half of the country is converging on a narrow, extreme Social Justice ideology.
First they came for the dongle jokers, and I did not speak, because I was not a dongle joker...
[1] http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badg...
Maybe it's due to the rise of twitter and the ease of taking things out of context. It seems to fuel tabloid "journalists" like Sam Biddle who sit around on twitter all day, looking for tweets that he can read X-ism into.
The sad thing is that if Paul Graham were an employee of a tech company, he'd probably be fired by now[1]. The room for thought and discussion is much smaller than it used to be, even though we have more tools for self-expression than ever before.
Moldbug saw this happening and he decided that "America is a Communist Country". I think that's a bit strong, but I agree that at least the progressive half of the country is converging on a narrow, extreme Social Justice ideology.
First they came for the dongle jokers, and I did not speak, because I was not a dongle joker...
[1] http://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badg...
Indeed, and its ironic that the same people who seek to expose anyone who says something un-PC, are so quick to accuse anyone who criticizes their movement of harassment.
Shanley Kane and her circle and sympathizers are spearheading this. Many of them show up in every HN thread about charged topics. I fully expect defense of them to show up in reply. It is part of my core being to be respectful to everyone, to listen to all sides, to feel empathy; however, when I am presented with a popular group in my industry that does none of those things, I am not sure how to react.
What's depressing is how many people get added to that list, some unexpectedly; I had a lot of respect for Alex Gaynor until he filed that famous pull request and threw his lot in with that crowd (which he did when he wrote a blog post that said "if you disagree, you are wrong," effectively ending the possibility of rationally disagreeing with him).
I want to make things better as a white male, but I am fairly tired of her group trying to make me regret the situation I was born into. It's not my fault I'm a white male, I am cognizant of my advantage, and I want to help other groups in this industry; however, there is no speaking to them. I've tried. I'm a white male and I am evil to them, the irony of which is not lost on me given their purpose. I think I partially know how it feels to be gay, because I didn't choose my situation yet there is an extremely vocal group that wants me to believe I am doing something wrong.
On top of that, I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry. I have yet to meet a woman that appreciates the efforts of the Twitter cabal. Some of them won't share that opinion because they're scared to death of being marked. Just look at historical precedent. Shanley never misses a chance to go after Sarah Lacy. Zed Shaw is still going after Steve Holden every chance he gets. Once you fuck up you are followed for life. I bet people are religiously looking for the guy from PlayHaven to see what he does next.
More apropos, Shanley is now furiously trying to get journalists to support her anti-HN agenda, and is calling for a boycott of all portfolio companies, simply based on one comment by pg. That's the modus operandae of these people: all it takes is one mistake, one out of context quote, anything, and the party line is now that Y Combinator is misogynistic and represents the active VC discrimination against women. Some brave soul asked her for proof on Twitter and got a healthy "fuck you" back after she told him to Google it. That's some McCarthyesque shit right there. Is that what we are now? Communist hunters? Because I could have sworn we were smart folks trying to make the world a better place.
I worry about the outright animosity that is gaining support in our industry. There is no inclination to work together, only standing around and yelling at each other. Enough people seem to think that's a good thing because several of her circle started Gittip accounts and they are cleaning house. I have no idea what to make of that.
My only recourse thus far has been to keep distance and remember the companies that foster this animosity by employing those folks and publicly supporting their ideals. Then I think twice about ever working there. Basho and Joyent come to mind. On the flip side, I'd be privileged to work at SendGrid, who publicly took a stand against such behavior.
2013 for me: the US government is now an advanced persistent threat against my infrastructure and there is also an advanced persistent threat developing against my career, lest I not suppress independent thought.
What's depressing is how many people get added to that list, some unexpectedly; I had a lot of respect for Alex Gaynor until he filed that famous pull request and threw his lot in with that crowd (which he did when he wrote a blog post that said "if you disagree, you are wrong," effectively ending the possibility of rationally disagreeing with him).
I want to make things better as a white male, but I am fairly tired of her group trying to make me regret the situation I was born into. It's not my fault I'm a white male, I am cognizant of my advantage, and I want to help other groups in this industry; however, there is no speaking to them. I've tried. I'm a white male and I am evil to them, the irony of which is not lost on me given their purpose. I think I partially know how it feels to be gay, because I didn't choose my situation yet there is an extremely vocal group that wants me to believe I am doing something wrong.
On top of that, I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry. I have yet to meet a woman that appreciates the efforts of the Twitter cabal. Some of them won't share that opinion because they're scared to death of being marked. Just look at historical precedent. Shanley never misses a chance to go after Sarah Lacy. Zed Shaw is still going after Steve Holden every chance he gets. Once you fuck up you are followed for life. I bet people are religiously looking for the guy from PlayHaven to see what he does next.
More apropos, Shanley is now furiously trying to get journalists to support her anti-HN agenda, and is calling for a boycott of all portfolio companies, simply based on one comment by pg. That's the modus operandae of these people: all it takes is one mistake, one out of context quote, anything, and the party line is now that Y Combinator is misogynistic and represents the active VC discrimination against women. Some brave soul asked her for proof on Twitter and got a healthy "fuck you" back after she told him to Google it. That's some McCarthyesque shit right there. Is that what we are now? Communist hunters? Because I could have sworn we were smart folks trying to make the world a better place.
I worry about the outright animosity that is gaining support in our industry. There is no inclination to work together, only standing around and yelling at each other. Enough people seem to think that's a good thing because several of her circle started Gittip accounts and they are cleaning house. I have no idea what to make of that.
My only recourse thus far has been to keep distance and remember the companies that foster this animosity by employing those folks and publicly supporting their ideals. Then I think twice about ever working there. Basho and Joyent come to mind. On the flip side, I'd be privileged to work at SendGrid, who publicly took a stand against such behavior.
2013 for me: the US government is now an advanced persistent threat against my infrastructure and there is also an advanced persistent threat developing against my career, lest I not suppress independent thought.
[deleted]
>I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry
And that is what pisses me off about this kind of nonsense. If it was just idiots being idiots I wouldn't care, but this shit actually affects people. My wife doesn't to go to conferences or involve herself in the programming world outside of directly doing her job any more because she feels like everyone is afraid to talk near her much less to her, for fear of losing their job over something they said.
And that is what pisses me off about this kind of nonsense. If it was just idiots being idiots I wouldn't care, but this shit actually affects people. My wife doesn't to go to conferences or involve herself in the programming world outside of directly doing her job any more because she feels like everyone is afraid to talk near her much less to her, for fear of losing their job over something they said.
I agree with your wife, also avoid tech conf and women tech meetups because I am afraid. Most of us are trying to be do our job well, improve how we code etc, build something useful perhaps BUT this back and forth makes it very difficult.
"I'm a white male and I am evil to them"
Name one person who has said this.
Name one person who has said this.
No one says it literally. It's embedded in the implications.
The industry is "too white, too male".
White men don't understand the implications or the need for diversity.
White men are dinosaurs, they need to adapt to the new world.
There's a ton of dog-whistle racism and sexism against white men. Unfortunately, that's the 'acceptable' kind of racism and sexism, because many white men are in positions of power and authority (and therefore 'white men' are considered acceptable to criticize as a group - and even those who lack power are lumped in with the tiny elite at the top).
The criticisms that are levied, without proof, against white men in the tech industry, would be treated as evidence of terrible racism and/or sexism if they were levied at other groups.
Unlike other groups white men are just expected to smile and nod and agree with the 'feminists' or 'anti-racists' ... arguing back is taken as proof of guilt.
The industry is "too white, too male".
White men don't understand the implications or the need for diversity.
White men are dinosaurs, they need to adapt to the new world.
There's a ton of dog-whistle racism and sexism against white men. Unfortunately, that's the 'acceptable' kind of racism and sexism, because many white men are in positions of power and authority (and therefore 'white men' are considered acceptable to criticize as a group - and even those who lack power are lumped in with the tiny elite at the top).
The criticisms that are levied, without proof, against white men in the tech industry, would be treated as evidence of terrible racism and/or sexism if they were levied at other groups.
Unlike other groups white men are just expected to smile and nod and agree with the 'feminists' or 'anti-racists' ... arguing back is taken as proof of guilt.
Louis CK has many smart and funny things to say on this topic (race, here, not gender for the most part):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4LkrQCyIz8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=derzWWYf3-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
Agreed. I think, however, that addressing "white men" as a group misses the specific target of criticism. The 23 year old entry-level "SWE-I" - who happens to be a white male - is not the 'king' and not a threat to anybody. Lumping him in with men of great power, wealth, and influence because of his race / sex / cultural background is problematic. It's more likely to alienate him and lose him as a potential ally, than to get him on board.
On the other hand, informing VCs or other gatekeepers about the desire for diversity in the profession, and holding the thought leaders to a high standard, does make sense.
On the other hand, informing VCs or other gatekeepers about the desire for diversity in the profession, and holding the thought leaders to a high standard, does make sense.
You, by quoting it. Next?
[deleted]
Watching you clutch your pearls is fucking hilarious, so I've set up a weekly donation of a fair chunk of change to Shanley's Gittip account.
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work.
Unlike most folks, I know who you are (I am not far removed from your social circle from prior employment) and you'll have to try that on someone else. I would encourage you to formulate a substantive point, for once, and seek a rational discussion on this with me but I know from experience that's not Coda Hale Style.
Last year I donated more than your annual contribution to Shanley's Gittip on causes for hunger and urban outreach, too. Since 2010 I have done a 50/50 split between my own 401(k) and hand-selected charities, and my 401(k) contribution is currently 3%. You can do the math. So, you can't hurt my feelings by tossing your big bad salary at another salaried worker in the industry in SF instead of, you know, helping people that need it.
Finally, between you and Michael Church I just can't use Scala any more for fear of remembering that you exist.
Last year I donated more than your annual contribution to Shanley's Gittip on causes for hunger and urban outreach, too. Since 2010 I have done a 50/50 split between my own 401(k) and hand-selected charities, and my 401(k) contribution is currently 3%. You can do the math. So, you can't hurt my feelings by tossing your big bad salary at another salaried worker in the industry in SF instead of, you know, helping people that need it.
Finally, between you and Michael Church I just can't use Scala any more for fear of remembering that you exist.
I'm happy to hear you're donating to charity, but you're missing out on a great opportunity to reduce your taxable income and save for retirement. The 2013 contribution limit is $17,500, and most financial planners would be aghast at a well-paid professional like yourself not taking such an easy step to lower your tax liability. The good news is that if you max out your contribution either today or tomorrow, you'll still make the 2013 contribution deadline.
Say hey to the folks we both know for me when you see them.
Say hey to the folks we both know for me when you see them.
[deleted]
This is what I believe you call derailing. Like the other person, I'm also still waiting for substantive points to be made rather than shaming and cherry picking.
I'm not here for debate club, Johnonymous. Like I said before, I'm here for the pearl-clutching.
No indeed, that would mean not being a self righteous prick. You know what the effect of people like Kane was in the skeptic community? Female conference attendance dropped from 40% to 10% in a single year.
Enjoy your self defeating efforts.
Enjoy your self defeating efforts.
[deleted]
I would just like to point out, per pg's observations, that this is an eloquent way of saying "ur a fag".
+1, adding some money to Shanley's account
Yes, it's so great for women in open source that the only 2 women in the Gittip top 12 are there because they whine and bitch a lot, rather than produce something useful. Keep white knighting.
Both are known for pulling facts out of their ass that are either unsupported or contradicted by evidence.
Both are known for pulling facts out of their ass that are either unsupported or contradicted by evidence.
What disappoints me most is that I actually sympathize with feminism. I just wish they were less McCarthyist about it. Which is an apt analogy as I also sympathize with anti-communists.
> What disappoints me most is that I actually sympathize with feminism.
Ready for this? Me too. If you notice, I didn't use that word at all in my comment, because I take issue with only the method of delivery, not the message.
Ready for this? Me too. If you notice, I didn't use that word at all in my comment, because I take issue with only the method of delivery, not the message.
I want to help other groups in this industry; however, there is no speaking to them.
I think I partially know how it feels to be gay, because I didn't choose my situation yet there is an extremely vocal group that wants me to believe I am doing something wrong.
I humbly submit that you have no idea how it feels to be gay, and that the best way to find out is to actually talk to us. [email protected].
I think I partially know how it feels to be gay, because I didn't choose my situation yet there is an extremely vocal group that wants me to believe I am doing something wrong.
I humbly submit that you have no idea how it feels to be gay, and that the best way to find out is to actually talk to us. [email protected].
> I humbly submit that you have no idea how it feels to be gay
It was a bad example, which is why I included partially, and I apologize for my poor thought there. I was only identifying with having no choice in a situation and then having vocal groups attempt to vilify that situation.
I am certainly not claiming that I experience any hardship that gay folks do beyond that one. Please don't assume I'm in a bubble, either; I married into a Mormon family and experienced that intolerance firsthand as I fought against it.
E-mailed as requested.
It was a bad example, which is why I included partially, and I apologize for my poor thought there. I was only identifying with having no choice in a situation and then having vocal groups attempt to vilify that situation.
I am certainly not claiming that I experience any hardship that gay folks do beyond that one. Please don't assume I'm in a bubble, either; I married into a Mormon family and experienced that intolerance firsthand as I fought against it.
E-mailed as requested.
I'm gay and I feel exactly the same way about this whole farce. The idea that no straight person can truly sympathize is bullshit... and when it comes from those who complain about a lack of empathy in others, I just scratch my head.
The irony is of course, they are themselves the most privileged around: white, educated tech employees in Silicon Valley.
The irony is of course, they are themselves the most privileged around: white, educated tech employees in Silicon Valley.
On the contrary, I believe strongly in the importance of allies.
"Ally" is just another in the long line of useless SJW concepts. How about just not being homophobic or sexist? But no, that's not deemed sufficient. Privilege is basically the SJW take on Original Sin, and declaring yourself to be an ally is like self-flaggelating yourself into repentance.
You don't need to ally yourself with every gay person to not be a homophobe, and you don't need to ally yourself with every woman to not be a sexist.
The people who want "allies" tend to be surrounded by unquestioning fans and tend to get their panties in a bunch when faced with actual criticism, deserved or not. If you believe that any criticism you receive happens because you are gay or because you are a woman, then "allies" are the only people who won't upset your delicate sensibilities.
You don't need to ally yourself with every gay person to not be a homophobe, and you don't need to ally yourself with every woman to not be a sexist.
The people who want "allies" tend to be surrounded by unquestioning fans and tend to get their panties in a bunch when faced with actual criticism, deserved or not. If you believe that any criticism you receive happens because you are gay or because you are a woman, then "allies" are the only people who won't upset your delicate sensibilities.
> On top of that, I know several women in the industry, from marketing wizard to expert programmer with publish credits, who have to tip toe when they go to a company because men are being trained that all women are like Shanley in the industry.
It's really hard to read that and not think of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/vote-no-on-...
It's really hard to read that and not think of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/vote-no-on-...
It's telling that we only know him as "the guy from PlayHaven" while we all know Adria Richards by name. In that picture Adria took at PyCon, I'm not even sure which guy got fired.
Okay, so the PlayHaven guy got fired. Adria had death threats made against her, was the subject of a beheading picture, had her home address and phone number publicized, her employer was DDOSed, and she was ultimately fired, like the PlayHaven guy.
That's misogyny in action. That's what needs to end.
On one side, it's a few people using their real names and identities to be harshly and specifically critical on Twitter. On the other side, it's an avalanche of anonymous death threats. I know which one bothers me more.
Okay, so the PlayHaven guy got fired. Adria had death threats made against her, was the subject of a beheading picture, had her home address and phone number publicized, her employer was DDOSed, and she was ultimately fired, like the PlayHaven guy.
That's misogyny in action. That's what needs to end.
On one side, it's a few people using their real names and identities to be harshly and specifically critical on Twitter. On the other side, it's an avalanche of anonymous death threats. I know which one bothers me more.
Okay, so the PlayHaven guy got fired. Adria had death threats made against her, was the subject of a beheading picture, had her home address and phone number publicized, her employer was DDOSed, and she was ultimately fired, like the PlayHaven guy.
Neither one is acceptable. The mob action is obviously worse, but both punishments were wrong.
What should have happened (wishful thinking I know) is that AR could have told the guys to knock it off, or gone to staff without tweeting a picture to make a complaint if she was not comfortable with a one-on-one disagreement.
In that case the very competent PyCon staff would have mediated the complaint, and no one would have heard about it beyond a small circle of a few dozen people.
Neither one is acceptable. The mob action is obviously worse, but both punishments were wrong.
What should have happened (wishful thinking I know) is that AR could have told the guys to knock it off, or gone to staff without tweeting a picture to make a complaint if she was not comfortable with a one-on-one disagreement.
In that case the very competent PyCon staff would have mediated the complaint, and no one would have heard about it beyond a small circle of a few dozen people.
This kind of thinking is anathema to SJW ideology. Example: https://twitter.com/eassumption/status/416999484581625856
Interesting.
Jumping to the worst possible conclusion / interpretation of someone's words seems to be a hallmark of this style of 'activism'. Which leads to especially aggressive debates and misunderstandings, especially when people are on Twitter and constrained to <140 characters.
Jumping to the worst possible conclusion / interpretation of someone's words seems to be a hallmark of this style of 'activism'. Which leads to especially aggressive debates and misunderstandings, especially when people are on Twitter and constrained to <140 characters.
The one tweet in there about private conversations enabling power dynamics is interesting. jdunck told me via email that he refuses to even discuss this stuff privately because I have to own up to my comment publicly, which really confused the hell out of me. But now it makes more sense.
I was also ready to just accept it as SJWs wanting help in a group from someone who calls them on their bullshit. Probably a little of column A, little of column B.
I was also ready to just accept it as SJWs wanting help in a group from someone who calls them on their bullshit. Probably a little of column A, little of column B.
private conversations enabling power dynamics
Public conversations also enable power dynamics.
They just enable power dynamics of a different sort - mobbing, pile-ons, and other forms of collective shaming.
Public conversations also enable power dynamics.
They just enable power dynamics of a different sort - mobbing, pile-ons, and other forms of collective shaming.
I think both sides are assholes, and should collectively shut up and let calm, reasonable people handle these problems like adults.
This is my feeling as well. I get that anonymous death threats are an issue, but the counterweight is not made any more palatable by that fact. I also agree with grandparent about anonymous misogyny, but not that one group is less troubling than the other.
That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here... Do you realize how ridiculous you are?
If you would like to know what racism is and why criticism of a dominant group on the basis of race isn't in, here's one take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M
But you'd have to listen to get it, and you'd definitely have to give up your bullshit self-serving circular "logic".
If you would like to know what racism is and why criticism of a dominant group on the basis of race isn't in, here's one take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M
But you'd have to listen to get it, and you'd definitely have to give up your bullshit self-serving circular "logic".
> That people are reading this subthread and finding common cause with this right here...
...is indicative of the fact that mentioned people have tweeted a link to it, bringing a predominantly sympathetic crowd to attempt to kick my ass in the comments. Including you. I can read Twitter, you know.
I can't understand the rest of your comment. Can you rephrase your disagreement and point out what you take issue with? It would also help if you didn't refer to my opinion as bullshit, or at least provide some specificity on what you find to be bullshit about what I've said.
...is indicative of the fact that mentioned people have tweeted a link to it, bringing a predominantly sympathetic crowd to attempt to kick my ass in the comments. Including you. I can read Twitter, you know.
I can't understand the rest of your comment. Can you rephrase your disagreement and point out what you take issue with? It would also help if you didn't refer to my opinion as bullshit, or at least provide some specificity on what you find to be bullshit about what I've said.
Where does the parent comment even mention racism? This is just a drive-by snipe attacking something that the parent didn't even say.
> several of her circle started Gittip accounts and they are cleaning house
459usd/week*52weeks/year = 23k/year - taxes = ~10k
They will be rich soon.
459usd/week*52weeks/year = 23k/year - taxes = ~10k
They will be rich soon.
I take your point, but if you earn $23k/year you aren't paying over 50% in tax. Particularly post eitc.
He's quoting Coda Hale without doing the math himself. It's fairly trivial to deduce who was sent here from the link that went around on Twitter. I see at least six people that saw the link on Twitter, giggled about it, then decided to show up on HN to make me feel bad. Because me calling it a group is totally wrong when they brigade a thread, right?
https://twitter.com/coda/status/417500281291550721
Regardless, my point was those Gittip accounts do well versus other Gittip accounts, which by and large represent people who contribute a lot of free software to the community.
https://twitter.com/coda/status/417500281291550721
Regardless, my point was those Gittip accounts do well versus other Gittip accounts, which by and large represent people who contribute a lot of free software to the community.
[deleted]
> Communist hunters? Because I could have sworn we were smart folks trying to make the world a better place.
No, more like misogynist-racist-capitalist hunters. We HN types are trying to profit. At best grabbing so much money with uninspiring "tech" that some will assume their rightful place as benevolent plutocrats playing SimEarth.
> Shanley never misses a chance to go after Sarah Lacy
Anyone can see for themselves that Sarah Lacy is happy to dish out more than she gets, even using a gender slur against women just trying to talk (scroll down to the video): (http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/09/28/techcrunch-women-in-tech...)
> That's the modus operandae of these people: all it takes is one mistake
And evidence accumulated over time. And HN posters like you making wild accusations without one single cite to back up your claims... which turn out flimsy when you actually research it.
> It's not my fault I'm a white male
But it's your fault that you act this way. When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay. Your hurt feelings are far more important to you. At least you "get that anonymous death threats are an issue". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983085)
Like the kind that attacked Kathy Sierra and her children. Because she dared speak her mind. (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...)
Yeah, people like you make the world a better place.
No, more like misogynist-racist-capitalist hunters. We HN types are trying to profit. At best grabbing so much money with uninspiring "tech" that some will assume their rightful place as benevolent plutocrats playing SimEarth.
> Shanley never misses a chance to go after Sarah Lacy
Anyone can see for themselves that Sarah Lacy is happy to dish out more than she gets, even using a gender slur against women just trying to talk (scroll down to the video): (http://www.lemondrop.com/2010/09/28/techcrunch-women-in-tech...)
> That's the modus operandae of these people: all it takes is one mistake
And evidence accumulated over time. And HN posters like you making wild accusations without one single cite to back up your claims... which turn out flimsy when you actually research it.
> It's not my fault I'm a white male
But it's your fault that you act this way. When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay. Your hurt feelings are far more important to you. At least you "get that anonymous death threats are an issue". (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6983085)
Like the kind that attacked Kathy Sierra and her children. Because she dared speak her mind. (http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes...)
Yeah, people like you make the world a better place.
> But it's your fault that you act this way.
And which way is that? I just shared an opinion. Am I not supposed to have opinions? Are there correct opinions?
> When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay.
Careful with that "you" there, pal. I have never done, and would never, ever do this. Jesse Noller will remember when I e-mailed him to offer him support when he was receiving death threats over the PyCon affair. Being stalked and threatened by the Internet is no laughing matter and I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone. In 2005-2006, a younger me was fairly involved in 4chan (your guess is as good as mine) and I know firsthand the depths of anonymity. I'd hold the same opinion of someone and react to that person the same way if they threatened to kill either Shanley Kane, myself, or any member of my family.
So, you had a pretty good point going there and then did exactly what you are accusing me of doing, painting a caricature of me which is easy for you to whack on.
And which way is that? I just shared an opinion. Am I not supposed to have opinions? Are there correct opinions?
> When someone mentions how Shanley gets threats of murder, you downplay.
Careful with that "you" there, pal. I have never done, and would never, ever do this. Jesse Noller will remember when I e-mailed him to offer him support when he was receiving death threats over the PyCon affair. Being stalked and threatened by the Internet is no laughing matter and I wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone. In 2005-2006, a younger me was fairly involved in 4chan (your guess is as good as mine) and I know firsthand the depths of anonymity. I'd hold the same opinion of someone and react to that person the same way if they threatened to kill either Shanley Kane, myself, or any member of my family.
So, you had a pretty good point going there and then did exactly what you are accusing me of doing, painting a caricature of me which is easy for you to whack on.
And when guys in tech mention to Shanley that they too have pet trolls who send them nasty things, she ignores them.
[Citation Needed]
That applies to every single blog post about "white men" she's every written. Her first. Besides, don't want to draw the ire of the twitter harpies... again.
> There is a lot of systemic bias in the system against young women taking this kind of direction with their studies and their career.
I understand there is cultural bias, but systemic? There are more women attending and graduating college than men, they're more economically prosperous in their early twenties as well.[1]
[1]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/27/young-w...
I understand there is cultural bias, but systemic? There are more women attending and graduating college than men, they're more economically prosperous in their early twenties as well.[1]
[1]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/27/young-w...
Yes, because they are very well represented in the traditional professions: law, accounting, and medicine.
They are not well represented in computer software. That's what we're talking about.
Go to a crypto conference sometime. If, like me, you hail from computer software and not from academic cryptography and mathematics, you will probably be surprised at how much better women are represented there than in software. The technology of cryptography is more demanding than computer software, but very similar in spirit.
What is it about the field of computer software development that keeps so many women out?
I suspect some of it has to do with the way we take observations about what successful developers have looked like in the past --- young white dudes --- and create fast paths for those people. People who "fit the mold" have an easier time making progress in our field. People who don't fit the mold have to contend with more interrogation, more doubt, and slower progress. It's true of other minorities (relative to software development demographics) as well, particularly older people.
They are not well represented in computer software. That's what we're talking about.
Go to a crypto conference sometime. If, like me, you hail from computer software and not from academic cryptography and mathematics, you will probably be surprised at how much better women are represented there than in software. The technology of cryptography is more demanding than computer software, but very similar in spirit.
What is it about the field of computer software development that keeps so many women out?
I suspect some of it has to do with the way we take observations about what successful developers have looked like in the past --- young white dudes --- and create fast paths for those people. People who "fit the mold" have an easier time making progress in our field. People who don't fit the mold have to contend with more interrogation, more doubt, and slower progress. It's true of other minorities (relative to software development demographics) as well, particularly older people.
>They are not well represented in computer software
Are they "well represented" in any skilled trade? Why is this one specific skilled trade such a unique cause for concern and inventing crazy reasons to blame the people in the trade?
Are they "well represented" in any skilled trade? Why is this one specific skilled trade such a unique cause for concern and inventing crazy reasons to blame the people in the trade?
Because software is eating the world.
Because entrepreneurship creates jobs.
Because software is the new means of production.
Because people different than you have problems which are different than yours.
Because dog-fooding is a great way to make something people want.
Lots more reasons, but chew on those.
Because entrepreneurship creates jobs.
Because software is the new means of production.
Because people different than you have problems which are different than yours.
Because dog-fooding is a great way to make something people want.
Lots more reasons, but chew on those.
Only 1 and 3 are relevant, and I don't believe either of them are true. The rest of those apply equally to all sorts of other skilled trades.
[deleted]
I don't think the line between cultural and systemic bias (as used in the article's context) is as clear cut as you interpret it as.
They heavily influence each other at the least and depending on your definition either could even be considered a superset of the other.
They heavily influence each other at the least and depending on your definition either could even be considered a superset of the other.
One fascinating aspect of this is how bad the post 1990 startup culture has been for women. There was something about those big, boring corporations of the 1970s and 1980s that actually gave female hackers more acceptance than what startups have offered.
You can see female interest in programming change in the charts on these pages:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
Note that those graphs show raw numbers, not a percentage of the population -- if you adjust for the growing population, female graduation rates in computer science peak in the 1980s. As it says in the text:
"As a share of all CS bachelor's degrees granted that year, females had slipped almost 10 points, from 37% in 1984/1985 to 27% in 2003."
A family anecdote: my mom was working on her Phd in urban planning back in the 1970s and her advisor said to her "You know, in the future, many of these issues of traffic and resource allocation will be resolved through computer simulations, so you should learn to program." My mom thought that was a good idea so she took some classes and learned basic programming. She does not recall feeling like an outsider in those classes: the computer field was still new and felt wide open.
Nowadays a lot of startups talk about the need for "culture fit". This tends to limit the diversity of the gender and race and class of who is hired. For contrast, consider people like Evelyn Boyd Granville, and her acceptance at IBM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Boyd_Granville
Here on Hacker News we also discussed the story that Raganwald posted, about another black woman at IBM, though that article is now offline:
http://raganwald.posterous.com/a-womans-story
If IBM applied a filter of "culture fit" then these women would not have been hired. But IBM, and many of the big corporations in the USA, followed very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place.
There were some startups from the 1950s and 1960s that broke new ground in terms of diversity. Ray Kroc built up a small startup called McDonalds and in a quiet way he made feminist history in his treatment of June Martino. She was initially hired as the bookkeeper, but she was later entrusted with vast responsibilities and finally, in 1965, when McDonalds went public, she was given shares in the company, exactly like any other cofounder of a startup. This was apparently the first time in history that a woman was treated as a real cofounder and given stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Martino
If you look at the numbers, it seems clear that the emergence of the tech-based startup scene, in the 1990s, changed things for women. The startups have not emphasized hiring diversity. The startups tend to emphasize culture fit, and they were doing so even before that phrase came into existence. Why this should be, I am not sure. There have been startups in the past that have emphasized diversity in hiring, so I am not clear why the current generation of startups cannot do so. But what is clear is that it is not a priority for them. The big and boring corporations of the past did a better job of creating spaces for women in tech.
Edit to add: to avoid being overly innocent, we should note how much the talk of "culture" is sometimes a smokescreen to hide power dynamics. Shanley Kane said "In Silicon Valley, and the tech industry in general, a lot of people were giving these talks about what their culture was and it was really superficial and focused on the privileged aspects of the company like free food and massages." Here on Hacker News we have already discussed the post "Google's 'free food' is not free" but it is worth remembering how much the talk about "culture" is just a negotiating tactic.
http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/01/21/notfree/
You can see female interest in programming change in the charts on these pages:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
Note that those graphs show raw numbers, not a percentage of the population -- if you adjust for the growing population, female graduation rates in computer science peak in the 1980s. As it says in the text:
"As a share of all CS bachelor's degrees granted that year, females had slipped almost 10 points, from 37% in 1984/1985 to 27% in 2003."
A family anecdote: my mom was working on her Phd in urban planning back in the 1970s and her advisor said to her "You know, in the future, many of these issues of traffic and resource allocation will be resolved through computer simulations, so you should learn to program." My mom thought that was a good idea so she took some classes and learned basic programming. She does not recall feeling like an outsider in those classes: the computer field was still new and felt wide open.
Nowadays a lot of startups talk about the need for "culture fit". This tends to limit the diversity of the gender and race and class of who is hired. For contrast, consider people like Evelyn Boyd Granville, and her acceptance at IBM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Boyd_Granville
Here on Hacker News we also discussed the story that Raganwald posted, about another black woman at IBM, though that article is now offline:
http://raganwald.posterous.com/a-womans-story
If IBM applied a filter of "culture fit" then these women would not have been hired. But IBM, and many of the big corporations in the USA, followed very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place.
There were some startups from the 1950s and 1960s that broke new ground in terms of diversity. Ray Kroc built up a small startup called McDonalds and in a quiet way he made feminist history in his treatment of June Martino. She was initially hired as the bookkeeper, but she was later entrusted with vast responsibilities and finally, in 1965, when McDonalds went public, she was given shares in the company, exactly like any other cofounder of a startup. This was apparently the first time in history that a woman was treated as a real cofounder and given stock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Martino
If you look at the numbers, it seems clear that the emergence of the tech-based startup scene, in the 1990s, changed things for women. The startups have not emphasized hiring diversity. The startups tend to emphasize culture fit, and they were doing so even before that phrase came into existence. Why this should be, I am not sure. There have been startups in the past that have emphasized diversity in hiring, so I am not clear why the current generation of startups cannot do so. But what is clear is that it is not a priority for them. The big and boring corporations of the past did a better job of creating spaces for women in tech.
Edit to add: to avoid being overly innocent, we should note how much the talk of "culture" is sometimes a smokescreen to hide power dynamics. Shanley Kane said "In Silicon Valley, and the tech industry in general, a lot of people were giving these talks about what their culture was and it was really superficial and focused on the privileged aspects of the company like free food and massages." Here on Hacker News we have already discussed the post "Google's 'free food' is not free" but it is worth remembering how much the talk about "culture" is just a negotiating tactic.
http://rachelbythebay.com/w/2012/01/21/notfree/
But IBM, and many of the big corporations in the USA, followed very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place.
A meritocracy based on raw intelligence and skill (measured by standardized testing) is not exactly what people mean today when they discuss "promoting diversity". In fact, nowadays people typically criticize such practices as inhibiting diversity [1].
As for culture fit, it's a complicated thing. There are some culture issues that can be a real problem - for example, my company really can't deal with people who don't believe in "let data make the decision". Similarly, there are companies out there which highly value civility and team spirit over correctness - my "this is broken, here is why" style would not work for them.
A lot of culture fit is just "do I think these guys are cool" silliness, but don't let that overshadow the fact that culture matters.
[1] http://ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-th... http://flosspols.org/deliverables/D16HTML/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gend...
A meritocracy based on raw intelligence and skill (measured by standardized testing) is not exactly what people mean today when they discuss "promoting diversity". In fact, nowadays people typically criticize such practices as inhibiting diversity [1].
As for culture fit, it's a complicated thing. There are some culture issues that can be a real problem - for example, my company really can't deal with people who don't believe in "let data make the decision". Similarly, there are companies out there which highly value civility and team spirit over correctness - my "this is broken, here is why" style would not work for them.
A lot of culture fit is just "do I think these guys are cool" silliness, but don't let that overshadow the fact that culture matters.
[1] http://ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-th... http://flosspols.org/deliverables/D16HTML/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gend...
> A meritocracy based on raw intelligence and skill (measured by standardized testing) is not exactly what people mean today when they discuss "promoting diversity".
[1] https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=standardized%20t...
Well sure, but largely because the standardized tests are all biased against women and/or minorities.
IQ tests - which are pretty well normed across cultures if you use the right ones - tend to turn up the same patterns over and over.
IQ tests (or their proxies) are useful ways of testing general cognitive fitness and ability and anticipating on-the-job performance and learning (see, e.g., http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatter... )
Some minorities seem to score higher than the mean (in some cases, up to one standard deviation higher) and some minorities tend to score lower. This is less about bias and more about measured genetic differences. (see, e.g., http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx )
And further, it seems as though women are no slouches in the IQ game: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overta...
IQ tests - which are pretty well normed across cultures if you use the right ones - tend to turn up the same patterns over and over.
IQ tests (or their proxies) are useful ways of testing general cognitive fitness and ability and anticipating on-the-job performance and learning (see, e.g., http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatter... )
Some minorities seem to score higher than the mean (in some cases, up to one standard deviation higher) and some minorities tend to score lower. This is less about bias and more about measured genetic differences. (see, e.g., http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx )
And further, it seems as though women are no slouches in the IQ game: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173808/Women-overta...
So then why don't startups hire based on the results of IQ tests, isn't this a meritocracy? You actually made my overall point stronger, because you demonstrated that this community clearly doesn't define "merit" to be "raw intelligence". It is a much, much more nuanced concept and it includes, I suspect, a large number of characteristics that are heavily influenced by gender, culture, and class. When we say "merit" we do not simply mean "how smart are you?", if we did, then according to your evidence, more companies would use IQ tests for screening potential employees.
Unless I plan to teach someone how to code, I also need to know if a person can code. In the era lkrubner was describing (the IBM/mainframe era), no one could code due to the small number of people with a mainframe in their basement.
Nowadays we hire people who already know how to code - I don't have time to teach someone to code. That's why I'm a big fan of github-as-resume. I want you to write code to make my company money so show me your code. But since women choose not to write open source, this form of work-sample test is criticized as discriminatory as well.
Also note that certain large meritocratic institutions (trading desks, some tech firms) do hire more or less on IQ. They can't actually give an IQ test themselves due to Griggs vs Duke Power so they outsource it to elite colleges instead. That's basically what is happening when they say "must come from a top school".
Nowadays we hire people who already know how to code - I don't have time to teach someone to code. That's why I'm a big fan of github-as-resume. I want you to write code to make my company money so show me your code. But since women choose not to write open source, this form of work-sample test is criticized as discriminatory as well.
Also note that certain large meritocratic institutions (trading desks, some tech firms) do hire more or less on IQ. They can't actually give an IQ test themselves due to Griggs vs Duke Power so they outsource it to elite colleges instead. That's basically what is happening when they say "must come from a top school".
In companies I worked for in the past, I definitely had to do IQ-ish tests such as puzzles and brain teasers. Many people in the tech industry have encountered this.
The cultural mythology of Google (and earlier, Microsoft, when they were the ascendant, 800-lb gorilla) was about their puzzle based interviews, and how they didn't care about your specific skill set but only raw intelligence. (We can debate about whether that was the best way to select and hire people, but I don't think there's much dispute that this was something these companies did.)
It's probably worth noting that the companies that used the brain teasers and IQ-proxy tests also did a "cultural fit interview" - basically, trying to answer honestly the question "would I be cool with spending 8 hours a day working with this person, or would I be seeking ways to kill myself?"
The cultural mythology of Google (and earlier, Microsoft, when they were the ascendant, 800-lb gorilla) was about their puzzle based interviews, and how they didn't care about your specific skill set but only raw intelligence. (We can debate about whether that was the best way to select and hire people, but I don't think there's much dispute that this was something these companies did.)
It's probably worth noting that the companies that used the brain teasers and IQ-proxy tests also did a "cultural fit interview" - basically, trying to answer honestly the question "would I be cool with spending 8 hours a day working with this person, or would I be seeking ways to kill myself?"
The problem is that those tests probably DO have cultural or gender biases. GP was pretty specific about the fact that only SOME intelligence tests have been shown to be effective and free of cultural and gender bias. So then we're back to my original comment.
I agree that an a in-house puzzle, brainteaser, and math test would probably be shown have some biases if it were analyzed according to the same processes that are used to analyze IQ tests and other psychometric tests.
So then why don't startups hire based on the results of IQ tests, isn't this a meritocracy?
That specifically is illegal in the United States.
Corporations are forced to use proxies instead, such as SAT or ACT scores, or things keyed to that, like college admissions.
That specifically is illegal in the United States.
Corporations are forced to use proxies instead, such as SAT or ACT scores, or things keyed to that, like college admissions.
> So then why don't startups hire based on the results of IQ tests, isn't this a meritocracy?
In the US, doing that is a decent way to get sued.
'tokenadult has a standard comment (he's made it many times with various revisions/updates) on this topic that you should read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6584957
In the US, doing that is a decent way to get sued.
'tokenadult has a standard comment (he's made it many times with various revisions/updates) on this topic that you should read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6584957
>Well sure, but largely because the standardized tests are all biased against women and/or minorities
I can't tell whether or not you are being sarcastic.
I can't tell whether or not you are being sarcastic.
The few links provided by your google search do not back up your claim of bias - they repeat the same vague assertion as you but provide no evidence. If you have evidence of this claim please be more specific about presenting it.
I also didn't claim any startups use IQ tests.
The point I was making is that what lkrubner described as "very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place" (namely, assessing ability via objective, quantitative means rather than subjective interviews) is now criticized by folks like yourself as anti-diversity. The legal precedent set by Griggs vs Duke Power and related legal cases makes it legally problematic.
Merit, BTW, is defined as "whatever will make my company the most money". In some roles it does involve social connections.
I also didn't claim any startups use IQ tests.
The point I was making is that what lkrubner described as "very liberal policies that promoted diversity in the work place" (namely, assessing ability via objective, quantitative means rather than subjective interviews) is now criticized by folks like yourself as anti-diversity. The legal precedent set by Griggs vs Duke Power and related legal cases makes it legally problematic.
Merit, BTW, is defined as "whatever will make my company the most money". In some roles it does involve social connections.
If "objective" and "merit" are defined as "upper-middle class white men" then don't talk about IQ tests, just say what you mean.
My point is that you can couch what goes on in whatever language you like, but if you don't care about social justice, then just say so and stop pretending that what you are doing is actually the "real" social justice or is somehow "natural" (for some weird, pseudo-genetic definition of "natural").
This is the same complaint I have about a lot of "capitalists". They like to talk about how the market will yield these socially optimal outcomes, but to listen to them tell the story, the market ALWAYS yields whatever is PC at the time. The truth is that the market is devoid of morality or values, and maybe that's fine, but don't lie about it. If the system you support has property X, but not property Y, don't pretend it has property Y just because property Y is easier to advocate for, be proud and stand up for your belief in property X!
Hiring is biased toward white men for a variety of reasons. If you are OK with that, then fine, say so. You didn't cause the historical problems women and minorities have had, so there's a reasonable argument to be made that you shouldn't have to pay for them. I, personally, would rather make less money but help equalize historical inequities, but that's just me. I also buy single-fly toilet paper because I think it is less wasteful, but I don't go around yelling at people who buy two-ply, that's their business. But don't pretend that by some weird contortion of logic and the rules of the universe hiring white men is "right". It's just more profitable because of the historical oppression of people who weren't white men. So say so. End of story.
My point is that you can couch what goes on in whatever language you like, but if you don't care about social justice, then just say so and stop pretending that what you are doing is actually the "real" social justice or is somehow "natural" (for some weird, pseudo-genetic definition of "natural").
This is the same complaint I have about a lot of "capitalists". They like to talk about how the market will yield these socially optimal outcomes, but to listen to them tell the story, the market ALWAYS yields whatever is PC at the time. The truth is that the market is devoid of morality or values, and maybe that's fine, but don't lie about it. If the system you support has property X, but not property Y, don't pretend it has property Y just because property Y is easier to advocate for, be proud and stand up for your belief in property X!
Hiring is biased toward white men for a variety of reasons. If you are OK with that, then fine, say so. You didn't cause the historical problems women and minorities have had, so there's a reasonable argument to be made that you shouldn't have to pay for them. I, personally, would rather make less money but help equalize historical inequities, but that's just me. I also buy single-fly toilet paper because I think it is less wasteful, but I don't go around yelling at people who buy two-ply, that's their business. But don't pretend that by some weird contortion of logic and the rules of the universe hiring white men is "right". It's just more profitable because of the historical oppression of people who weren't white men. So say so. End of story.
"Objective" means "different people applying the procedure will get the same answer". This is a property held by standardized tests and carefully defined interview processes. "Merit" is defined as "what will make me the most money".
I don't know why you believe I'm pretending to do "social justice". I'm not. I'm trying to make money, just like IBM in the mainframe era. Hiring based on coding ability is profitable because a software business is about turning code into money, it has nothing to do with "historical oppression".
Incidentally, I'm opposed to "social justice". Social justice is based on the premise that certain subsets of humanity [1] deserve special rights (mostly statistical equality), but the other 2^{6 billion} subsets of humanity do not.
If that's a moral axiom I don't share it. If it's derived from some other moral principle, I have not heard a coherent derivation [2].
(To fully grasp the philosophical issue I have, explain why you care about "women and minorities", but not "children of murder victims and people who's SSN ends with 3847".)
[1] Typically women, lgbt, blacks, hispanics, but not asians.
[2] The closest I've ever heard is basically "everybody cares about race/gender/lgbt so we do too".
I don't know why you believe I'm pretending to do "social justice". I'm not. I'm trying to make money, just like IBM in the mainframe era. Hiring based on coding ability is profitable because a software business is about turning code into money, it has nothing to do with "historical oppression".
Incidentally, I'm opposed to "social justice". Social justice is based on the premise that certain subsets of humanity [1] deserve special rights (mostly statistical equality), but the other 2^{6 billion} subsets of humanity do not.
If that's a moral axiom I don't share it. If it's derived from some other moral principle, I have not heard a coherent derivation [2].
(To fully grasp the philosophical issue I have, explain why you care about "women and minorities", but not "children of murder victims and people who's SSN ends with 3847".)
[1] Typically women, lgbt, blacks, hispanics, but not asians.
[2] The closest I've ever heard is basically "everybody cares about race/gender/lgbt so we do too".
Friendly reminder that "meritocracy" is intended as an anti pattern, in the same way that waterfall is.
Edit: here's a thoughtful piece on the term and its implications, from the original coiner of the term: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
Edit: here's a thoughtful piece on the term and its implications, from the original coiner of the term: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
> The startups have not emphasized hiring diversity. The startups tend to emphasize culture fit
Basically, "culture fit" is the same thing that the characters of Mad Men look for when they hire, just modulo a different culture. We can't get rid of this aspect of human nature, but we can make it more about rational and objective subjects and less about arbitrary cultural baggage. Basically, less smarmyness/arrogance, more humility, and more insight.
Smarmy and arrogant Ivy-leaguers from the Mad Men days couldn't see their own arbitrary bullshit. It's hard to see one's own arrogant bullshit, especially when you're constantly telling yourself how you're an elite in a meritocracy. Take it from a formerly smarmy and arrogant Ivy-leaguer. If you're a 20-something and think you're immune, you're a prime suspect.
Basically, "culture fit" is the same thing that the characters of Mad Men look for when they hire, just modulo a different culture. We can't get rid of this aspect of human nature, but we can make it more about rational and objective subjects and less about arbitrary cultural baggage. Basically, less smarmyness/arrogance, more humility, and more insight.
Smarmy and arrogant Ivy-leaguers from the Mad Men days couldn't see their own arbitrary bullshit. It's hard to see one's own arrogant bullshit, especially when you're constantly telling yourself how you're an elite in a meritocracy. Take it from a formerly smarmy and arrogant Ivy-leaguer. If you're a 20-something and think you're immune, you're a prime suspect.
"As a share of all CS bachelor's degrees granted that year, females had slipped almost 10 points"
This line of reasoning seems to assume that virtually all CS grads go into "post 1990 startup culture" companies. I suspect that nationwide, fresh grads going into startups is a rounding error.
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, just claiming the facts in support of it are not a good fit.
Something cultural that I could match up to declining female grad rates would be the stockholm syndrome-like popularity of the programming death-march meme, see videogame programmer lifestyle etc. Maybe women are smart enough to avoid that particular form of stupidity and thus avoid the field, but men are too dumb, thus maleness ratio increases.
This line of reasoning seems to assume that virtually all CS grads go into "post 1990 startup culture" companies. I suspect that nationwide, fresh grads going into startups is a rounding error.
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, just claiming the facts in support of it are not a good fit.
Something cultural that I could match up to declining female grad rates would be the stockholm syndrome-like popularity of the programming death-march meme, see videogame programmer lifestyle etc. Maybe women are smart enough to avoid that particular form of stupidity and thus avoid the field, but men are too dumb, thus maleness ratio increases.
> Maybe women are smart enough to avoid that particular form of stupidity and thus avoid the field, but men are too dumb, thus maleness ratio increases.
To quote Philip Greenspun:
> I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
To quote Philip Greenspun:
> I've taught a fair number of women students in electrical engineering and computer science classes over the years. I can give you a list of the ones who had the best heads on their shoulders and were the most thoughtful about planning out the rest of their lives. Their names are on files in my "medical school recommendations" directory.
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science
To some extent I wonder if the difference between the two environments is the acceptance of more junior engineers into the ranks. Even the original link suggests that female coders need to have the same skills as the male coders in order to succeed in the field, whereas one of the main bullet points for Carnegie Mellon's success was specifically encouraging students with no prior experience to join the program:
http://blog.play-i.com/carnegie-mellon-study-on-gender-and-c...
But how often in web engineering do you see postings for junior employees? Everyone wants someone who already has experience, the more senior the better. How do we get more people of any diversity to work at our companies if there are no entry-level positions in the field?
I think some of this might arise from the fact that web engineering is still a relatively new field. People making staffing decisions feel like they're taking on enough risk as-is, and don't want to take on the additional burden of training up junior engineers.
But if we don't train them, gaining diversity will be much more difficult, and we may some day find ourselves with a quickly-dwindling pool of experienced engineers to draw from.
I'm not sure we're there yet, but when we reach that point, already having a solid training program in place at a company will be an incredible market advantage. So we might be shooting ourselves in the foot by not starting those training programs now.
http://blog.play-i.com/carnegie-mellon-study-on-gender-and-c...
But how often in web engineering do you see postings for junior employees? Everyone wants someone who already has experience, the more senior the better. How do we get more people of any diversity to work at our companies if there are no entry-level positions in the field?
I think some of this might arise from the fact that web engineering is still a relatively new field. People making staffing decisions feel like they're taking on enough risk as-is, and don't want to take on the additional burden of training up junior engineers.
But if we don't train them, gaining diversity will be much more difficult, and we may some day find ourselves with a quickly-dwindling pool of experienced engineers to draw from.
I'm not sure we're there yet, but when we reach that point, already having a solid training program in place at a company will be an incredible market advantage. So we might be shooting ourselves in the foot by not starting those training programs now.
> But how often in web engineering do you see postings for junior employees? Everyone wants someone who already has experience, the more senior the better. How do we get more people of any diversity to work at our companies if there are no entry-level positions in the field?
Unfortunately, it's true in most field, it's extremely rare to find an ads that doesn't ask for a diploma and job experience (it didn't ask for experience, but I saw an ads where they asked for a diploma in a call center position...)
Unfortunately, it's true in most field, it's extremely rare to find an ads that doesn't ask for a diploma and job experience (it didn't ask for experience, but I saw an ads where they asked for a diploma in a call center position...)
"Culture fit" is a vague enough term to not really be able to say much about it. Are there companies who use it as a way to hide behind discrimination? Sure, almost certainly. But in my past experience the amount of times we rejected a candidate due to "no culture fit" was quite low and was for reasons that were of the flavor: "this person sounds like they totally caused drama in their old workplace" or "this person admitted to bending the rules in a way we find ethically dubious" etc. In other words, there are certainly alternative criteria for "culture" fit that are legitimate things to consider and are not discriminatory.
This speaks to how deranged mainstream software hiring practices are.
To wit: take a bunch of practitioners more or less at random and arrange to have them serially interview candidates. Apply virtually no structure to the interviews themselves; most of those practitioners will be free to generate their own questions, and if any guidance is given at all, it will usually take the form of "assess the candidate's abilities along axes X, Y, and Z" (for "X" of the form "Rails" or "Django" or whatever, &c). To that haphazard scheme, strongly imply that those practitioners are not merely expert at assessing the abilities of others (something that does not follow from the mere observation that the practitioners themselves are competent in the field), but also psychologists capable of extracting from a 45 minute adversarial interview the "culture" and mentality of candidates who are so nervous and upset from being judged by hostile strangers in this crapshoot process.
Software hiring is widely regarded by hiring managers as a nearly random process; at best, at savvy companies, the house might have an edge over time. And the cost of that edge is a system that is inhumane to virtually everybody, with the possible exception of a small elite of sought-after developers.
To wit: take a bunch of practitioners more or less at random and arrange to have them serially interview candidates. Apply virtually no structure to the interviews themselves; most of those practitioners will be free to generate their own questions, and if any guidance is given at all, it will usually take the form of "assess the candidate's abilities along axes X, Y, and Z" (for "X" of the form "Rails" or "Django" or whatever, &c). To that haphazard scheme, strongly imply that those practitioners are not merely expert at assessing the abilities of others (something that does not follow from the mere observation that the practitioners themselves are competent in the field), but also psychologists capable of extracting from a 45 minute adversarial interview the "culture" and mentality of candidates who are so nervous and upset from being judged by hostile strangers in this crapshoot process.
Software hiring is widely regarded by hiring managers as a nearly random process; at best, at savvy companies, the house might have an edge over time. And the cost of that edge is a system that is inhumane to virtually everybody, with the possible exception of a small elite of sought-after developers.
How does Matasno's hiring process work? I don't think I've heard you comment on hiring except to say everyone does it wrong.
In my company, we've hired everyone based on remote/part-time work, and paid tryouts. This seems to work well, but I don't feel like I can hire people who currently have full time jobs this way. I'm not sure how best to judge candidates who I can't observe working, besides a standard battery of technical interviewing and a lunch with the team.
In my company, we've hired everyone based on remote/part-time work, and paid tryouts. This seems to work well, but I don't feel like I can hire people who currently have full time jobs this way. I'm not sure how best to judge candidates who I can't observe working, besides a standard battery of technical interviewing and a lunch with the team.
I'll try to condense it as much as possible, and add the caveat that our process is imperfect:
1. Build outreach programs that are open-enrollment and broadly targeted (for instance, the crypto challenges aren't targeted at security industry events).
2. Explicitly overcommunicate the whole hiring process to candidates up front and sell the job, before attempting to screen. Actively try to correct for the adversarial nature of the process.
3. Drastically reduce the impact of phone screen interviews.
4. Administer standardized work-sample tests to all candidates regardless of previous experience; those tests have quantifiable outcomes (which we record).
5. Administer standardized on-site interviews with quantifiable outcomes (right now, they're "exercises", but their form might change over the long term).
The only point in our process where interviewers have a lot of flexibility in terms of what they do is the phone screens. We use the phone screens to generate predictions for how candidates will do on the rest of the interview, but we don't screen with them. (We would if the phone screen revealed a candidate to be a crazy person or a jerk, but I don't think that has ever happened).
So far, the things that have been most noticeably successful for us:
* Standardized, quantifiable results that allow us to generate a model of what a successful candidate actually does, rather than a gut feeling based on how well they answer questions, or how "confident" they are, or how "well spoken", or how impressive their resume.
* Outreach to the industry as a whole, not just to the small sectors of the industry we believed a-priori would generate the best candidates. Some of our best people have come essentially "out of nowhere", and recognizing that fact I'm especially interested in optimizing for that.
It is thrilling --- best word I have for it --- to find someone who's had no relevant job experience, hire them because they do unexpectedly well on a series of quantifiable metrics, and then see 6-9 months later that they are, say, showing us how to use BKZ lattice reduction and fourier transforms to exploit elliptic curve nonce biases.
1. Build outreach programs that are open-enrollment and broadly targeted (for instance, the crypto challenges aren't targeted at security industry events).
2. Explicitly overcommunicate the whole hiring process to candidates up front and sell the job, before attempting to screen. Actively try to correct for the adversarial nature of the process.
3. Drastically reduce the impact of phone screen interviews.
4. Administer standardized work-sample tests to all candidates regardless of previous experience; those tests have quantifiable outcomes (which we record).
5. Administer standardized on-site interviews with quantifiable outcomes (right now, they're "exercises", but their form might change over the long term).
The only point in our process where interviewers have a lot of flexibility in terms of what they do is the phone screens. We use the phone screens to generate predictions for how candidates will do on the rest of the interview, but we don't screen with them. (We would if the phone screen revealed a candidate to be a crazy person or a jerk, but I don't think that has ever happened).
So far, the things that have been most noticeably successful for us:
* Standardized, quantifiable results that allow us to generate a model of what a successful candidate actually does, rather than a gut feeling based on how well they answer questions, or how "confident" they are, or how "well spoken", or how impressive their resume.
* Outreach to the industry as a whole, not just to the small sectors of the industry we believed a-priori would generate the best candidates. Some of our best people have come essentially "out of nowhere", and recognizing that fact I'm especially interested in optimizing for that.
It is thrilling --- best word I have for it --- to find someone who's had no relevant job experience, hire them because they do unexpectedly well on a series of quantifiable metrics, and then see 6-9 months later that they are, say, showing us how to use BKZ lattice reduction and fourier transforms to exploit elliptic curve nonce biases.
This sounds like a vast improvement over most normal hiring processes. A question though - how do you avoid legal liability from (4) and (5) in the event that they cause a disparate impact (see Griggs vs Duke Power, etc)?
I don't think about it at all, and for good reason: nothing that our process does could possibly be more risky than the crapshoot process other companies use. To wit: I know for a fact that my process isn't going to be dumb enough to ask a woman whether she's going to be able to manage her child care responsibilities and still be able to answer emergency work calls.
The danger comes from the fact that courts generally give deference to ad-hoc processes, whereas systematic processes are inherently suspect. That's why interviews are fine but IQ tests are legally suspect.
As another example in this general line of thought, compare Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger. Point-based racial discrimination is illegal, but "holistic" "individualized" processes where race is just a "plus factor" are legal. (Only discrimination in favor of non-Asian minorities, of course.)
I agree that this legal doctrine is insane.
Completely tangentially, since you mentioned relevant questions which are illegal to ask, I'd love to see an economic analysis of this topic. Specifically, the classical Akerlof lemon market paper assumes a complete inability to measure quality. But in the hiring market there are only a few dimensions for which one is unable to measure quality. That complicates the analysis significantly, so I'd love to gain some intuition on the topic.
As another example in this general line of thought, compare Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger. Point-based racial discrimination is illegal, but "holistic" "individualized" processes where race is just a "plus factor" are legal. (Only discrimination in favor of non-Asian minorities, of course.)
I agree that this legal doctrine is insane.
Completely tangentially, since you mentioned relevant questions which are illegal to ask, I'd love to see an economic analysis of this topic. Specifically, the classical Akerlof lemon market paper assumes a complete inability to measure quality. But in the hiring market there are only a few dimensions for which one is unable to measure quality. That complicates the analysis significantly, so I'd love to gain some intuition on the topic.
How many women and non-Asian minorities does Matasano end up hiring with that process?
The point of Griggs vs Duke Power is that a work sample test would probably need to be "reasonably related" to the job at issue, if it has a disparate impact on minorities (meaning minorities pass at a lower rate). I have no idea how one proves in court that a test is "reasonably related", because I'm not a lawyer :-)
Yeah, I'm familiar with it; my point is that the ad-hoc procedures companies use in place of work-sample testing are much more perilous. I've been a witness to more than one legal action that resulted from them.
I see. For some reason I read your statement as being about disparate impact rather than ad-hoc hiring procedures.
All decision making processes with a human in the loop are going to be random, arbitrary, capricious, etc. But inhumane? about a job? It actually seems very humane. After all, only a human can look past the rules and see that a candidate is someone special that would be great for the company despite not matching the criteria.
Would you rather be selected for a job by a computer that follows inflexible rules embedded in software? That would be inhumane.
Would you rather be selected for a job by a computer that follows inflexible rules embedded in software? That would be inhumane.
I am telling you that after watching the Nth person go through an on-site interview process that we had already actively tried to program as positive and encouraging, and seeing them physically shaking in the conference room, and then thinking back on the last time I had needed to endure a job interview and how I felt, that yes, the process is inhumane. It demands of candidates that they endure a deeply uncomfortable process of being judged in 45 minute snapshots by strangers who often by all appearances seem to have rejection as an overt goal.
Your last question presents a false dichotomy and so I won't answer it.
I am, incidentally, a fan of your comments on HN. I'm just not interested in an argument where we're both going to be talking past each other.
Your last question presents a false dichotomy and so I won't answer it.
I am, incidentally, a fan of your comments on HN. I'm just not interested in an argument where we're both going to be talking past each other.
Yeah, I completely agree - I absolutely hate interviews, to the point where I would prefer to do a large amount of work on alternative methods over a full day of interviews.
Is it the case that you do not screen candidates based upon any other criteria than skills-based assessment in other fields? That assumes people are robots. I don't care what field you are talking about, people are always going to screen for "culture fit", since it can be defined to mean anything you want. It's "can I work with this person", "does this person seem trustworthy and honest", etc. The only difference is that it some places acknowledge this aspect of hiring, give it a name, and try to objectively assess it openly.
You can complete the sentence "people are always going to ________", especially as regards software hiring, with all sorts of crazy shit. Hiring is broadly and deeply fucked up. Very few organizations do it especially well. The median companies does it abysmally. But we don't notice, because we develop other systems to compensate for how bad we are at getting the right people in the door.
That's my point, why I bring up how bad hiring is. "Widespread best practice" in hiring does not imply effectiveness. Most companies are terrible at hiring. They just get away with it because other aspects of those companies are good enough to compensate.
That's my point, why I bring up how bad hiring is. "Widespread best practice" in hiring does not imply effectiveness. Most companies are terrible at hiring. They just get away with it because other aspects of those companies are good enough to compensate.
"Culture fit" is a terrible word for it. What you do is you explicitly lay out the principles you expect people to follow and conduct behavioral interviews to find times they've followed those principles in the past.
Here's an example: let's say you're a typical startup, and you need to move fast. You need to think fast and you need to act fast. Let's say you've made the decision to hire people around that principle. You can ask someone about how they've coped with short deadlines, or to tell you about a time they had to get a lot done in a short period of time, and you judge them based on their responses to your questions.
Generally there will be a number of different principles, and there are also ways you can overdo them, but you want to decide on the right balance and the right mix and then conduct behavioral interviews to measure candidates against that.
The wrong way to do it is to make subjective judgments like, "I want to work with this person" or "I can really have a conversation with this person".
Here's an example: let's say you're a typical startup, and you need to move fast. You need to think fast and you need to act fast. Let's say you've made the decision to hire people around that principle. You can ask someone about how they've coped with short deadlines, or to tell you about a time they had to get a lot done in a short period of time, and you judge them based on their responses to your questions.
Generally there will be a number of different principles, and there are also ways you can overdo them, but you want to decide on the right balance and the right mix and then conduct behavioral interviews to measure candidates against that.
The wrong way to do it is to make subjective judgments like, "I want to work with this person" or "I can really have a conversation with this person".
If someone rubs you wrong personally, why in the world would that not be relevant, especially on a small team? Sure, you don't have to be besties or anything, but being able to at least converse with someone makes any work relationship go a lot smoother, and inability to do so can cause serious problems.
I'd never let a good culture fit override a poor technical interview, but I've seen the consequences of hiring a brilliant programmer that happens to be an asshole, and it's not pretty. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying, or do you really think social skills should be entirely ignored when it comes to hiring?
I'd never let a good culture fit override a poor technical interview, but I've seen the consequences of hiring a brilliant programmer that happens to be an asshole, and it's not pretty. Am I misinterpreting what you're saying, or do you really think social skills should be entirely ignored when it comes to hiring?
> If someone rubs you wrong personally, why in the world would that not be relevant, especially on a small team?
Because business decisions should be made based upon facts and data, not based upon hunches and gut feelings. Going with your gut basically means throwing out the data and letting all of your personal biases decide the matter, consciously or unconsciously.
If it's a question of being able to work with others, then you can develop principles and behavioral interview questions around what you want your coworkers to be like. That's a bit of a pain in the ass, but empiricism was always more of a chore than just following your gut instinct.
Because business decisions should be made based upon facts and data, not based upon hunches and gut feelings. Going with your gut basically means throwing out the data and letting all of your personal biases decide the matter, consciously or unconsciously.
If it's a question of being able to work with others, then you can develop principles and behavioral interview questions around what you want your coworkers to be like. That's a bit of a pain in the ass, but empiricism was always more of a chore than just following your gut instinct.
Ok, I can buy that - your point is that you should be attempting to get an unbiased estimate of how well someone works on a team, not that it shouldn't matter. Totally reasonable. Much more difficult, but a worthwhile goal.
I feel like it might be almost impossible to remove gut feeling from the equation alogether, though, since a lot of the problems that wreck teams really do come down to "X really doesn't like Y's personality". At some level, isn't a negative gut feeling expressed by one of your team members as valid a data point as you can get to predict how well the person will work out on that team?
I feel like it might be almost impossible to remove gut feeling from the equation alogether, though, since a lot of the problems that wreck teams really do come down to "X really doesn't like Y's personality". At some level, isn't a negative gut feeling expressed by one of your team members as valid a data point as you can get to predict how well the person will work out on that team?
People who experience personality conflicts with each other can be civil to each other and interact in a professional capacity. Not being able to do that might be a problem, but we're all adults here.
Maybe I'm being too dramatic, but I see the concept of "cultural fit" as highly toxic and counterproductive, and that's without taking into account that (IMHO) it reflects some kind of fear and insecurity on those who promote it, who seem to be wary of being surrounded by different kinds of people. The effect on women who could potentially get into coding is just one of the multiple effects (although maybe the most prominent).
I used to work at Big Blue and got very used to the 'no discrimination' thing they had. So much so that now I'm outside it and working for smaller companies I've really noticed how horrible some of the attitudes towards women are in some of the smaller workplaces here (UK). It's really sickening and while a lot of it is from the older generation (50+) the younger folks aren't blameless either.
I think we need to be very clear that the programming jobs of that era are not todays programing jobs. It was 1980, general society wasn't very progressive, why would computer programming be the magic beacon of equality? And, of course, it wasn't, it was considered menial work fit for females.
I have heard that argument for jobs, but what about Bachelors Degree majors?
To me, the bigger difference is that there must be 10-100x more CS majors per year now than in 1985. CS was mostly applied math then, and math majors have long been extremely majority male.
To me, the bigger difference is that there must be 10-100x more CS majors per year now than in 1985. CS was mostly applied math then, and math majors have long been extremely majority male.
>To me, the bigger difference is that there must be 10-100x more CS majors per year now than in 1985. CS was mostly applied math then, and math majors have long been extremely majority male.
Actually, according to the second chart on this page(1), there are almost exactly the same number of CS bachelors degrees granted today as there were in 1985 (~41k). Also, the percentage of women in 1985 was double that of today.
[1] http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
Actually, according to the second chart on this page(1), there are almost exactly the same number of CS bachelors degrees granted today as there were in 1985 (~41k). Also, the percentage of women in 1985 was double that of today.
[1] http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
Doesn't the same argument apply? Mathematics was not a high-status degree in the '50s, and it was only when it became more respected (and lucrative) that feminists started to have a problem with the gender imbalance.
Raganwald's post:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130116103105/http://raganwald.p...
http://web.archive.org/web/20130116103105/http://raganwald.p...
I particularly appreciated your classification of McDonald's as a startup.
Glad to see someone else bringing up the "cultural fit" bullshit.
FWIW, the startup I was at seemed to have a soft affirmative action for females. They would reject males that didn't do much outside of college work, but would be willing to consider females with the same resume because "it would be nice to have more female coders".
Culture fit was about a modicum of friendliness. You could get rejected for culture fit by, say, looking away from your interviewer and mumbling to yourself. There could have been some great (and disadvantaged!) candidates with Eyeball Avoidance Syndrome + Tourette's that were rejected unfairly by the process, but so it goes.
The company was still 90% men in engineering, because that's what your talent pipeline looks like. I'm sure they were secret sexists, or something. Valleywag would write a scathing article about them.
In your example, I bet IBM was still predominantly male despite the anecdotal hiring of a few women that you mention.
Culture fit was about a modicum of friendliness. You could get rejected for culture fit by, say, looking away from your interviewer and mumbling to yourself. There could have been some great (and disadvantaged!) candidates with Eyeball Avoidance Syndrome + Tourette's that were rejected unfairly by the process, but so it goes.
The company was still 90% men in engineering, because that's what your talent pipeline looks like. I'm sure they were secret sexists, or something. Valleywag would write a scathing article about them.
In your example, I bet IBM was still predominantly male despite the anecdotal hiring of a few women that you mention.
The thing about startups and bias is that if you have a multitiered informal hiring process, a little bit of biases can be invisible and can be multiplied over filtering stages.
The company may at one stage indeed "let's consider her" but unless the company's overall hiring is formally specified, unless your documenting and so keeping reasonably track of what you are doing, you may not know the way that biases are creeping your decisions.
Another thing about startups is they often involve a "join our company and our lifestyle" approach. That also means that you will windup with people like you.
The company may at one stage indeed "let's consider her" but unless the company's overall hiring is formally specified, unless your documenting and so keeping reasonably track of what you are doing, you may not know the way that biases are creeping your decisions.
Another thing about startups is they often involve a "join our company and our lifestyle" approach. That also means that you will windup with people like you.
Well, you can easily statistically measure the funnel of applicants to interviews to hired by gender and verify this claim. I doubt you will find the problem is multiplied hidden biases in the interviewing process.
Really there usually aren't enough applicants that are diverse on any dimension. Mostly because most applications are by direct referral of existing staff. That's legitimate. Eventually your company will grow big enough to hire a recruiter to look in new talent markets.
Really there usually aren't enough applicants that are diverse on any dimension. Mostly because most applications are by direct referral of existing staff. That's legitimate. Eventually your company will grow big enough to hire a recruiter to look in new talent markets.
"Prove that you're not a witch" is a very old tactic - and it's the opposite of the modern standard of guilt.
It is interesting that whenever this subject is brought up, someone will eventually introduce the subject of guilt. Can you articulate why you responded in this way? Do you feel that you have been accused of something? What exactly would the metaphorical equivalent of being a "witch" mean in this context?
I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt.
This is a bit off-topic but I am fascinated about the exact reasons why some people react to conversations as if they have been accused of something. I think you might want to consider that nothing is useful is gained if you introduce the concept of "guilt" into a conversation where it is not needed.
I'll offer an example that has already been discussed on hundreds of blogs. You may recall in 2007 that John Kenzer interviewed Alex Payne? (I am sorry that the interview seems to be offline: http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twi... but it is in the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20070416091128/http://www.radical...) and Alex Payne offered some common sense observations about the difficulty of scaling Rails:
"Running on Rails has forced us to deal with scaling issues ... far sooner than I think we would on another framework. Once you hit a certain threshold of traffic, either you need to strip out all the costly neat stuff that Rails does for you ... or move the slow parts of your application out of Rails, or both."
You may recall that David Heinemeier Hansson's response was overheated and irrational. He said that Alex Payne was blaming Rails for all of the problems at Twitter. But Payne had never blamed Rails for anything, he merely talked about how they were struggling to make it scale.
(I am sorry to say that David's response appears to be offline now: http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/arc/000608.html , and the Internet Archive doesn't have it: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://david.heinemeierhansson..... As a side note, let us all mourn how many important conversations get erased off the web.)
Many smart commentators pointed out that there was no need for David Heinemeier Hansson to introduce the concept of blame into that conversation. Alex Payne's words could have simply been taken as a constructive starting point for a larger conversation about how to scale Rails. But for some reason Hansson felt the need to frame the conversation in terms of accusations and guilt.
The same is true about this conversation, and your reaction. We can have a constructive conversation about increasing diversity in hiring without ever introducing the concept of guilt.
And yet, every time this subject comes up, someone feels the need to frame the whole thing in terms of accusations and guilt. The level of defensiveness on display is remarkable.
I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt.
This is a bit off-topic but I am fascinated about the exact reasons why some people react to conversations as if they have been accused of something. I think you might want to consider that nothing is useful is gained if you introduce the concept of "guilt" into a conversation where it is not needed.
I'll offer an example that has already been discussed on hundreds of blogs. You may recall in 2007 that John Kenzer interviewed Alex Payne? (I am sorry that the interview seems to be offline: http://www.radicalbehavior.com/5-question-interview-with-twi... but it is in the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20070416091128/http://www.radical...) and Alex Payne offered some common sense observations about the difficulty of scaling Rails:
"Running on Rails has forced us to deal with scaling issues ... far sooner than I think we would on another framework. Once you hit a certain threshold of traffic, either you need to strip out all the costly neat stuff that Rails does for you ... or move the slow parts of your application out of Rails, or both."
You may recall that David Heinemeier Hansson's response was overheated and irrational. He said that Alex Payne was blaming Rails for all of the problems at Twitter. But Payne had never blamed Rails for anything, he merely talked about how they were struggling to make it scale.
(I am sorry to say that David's response appears to be offline now: http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/arc/000608.html , and the Internet Archive doesn't have it: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://david.heinemeierhansson..... As a side note, let us all mourn how many important conversations get erased off the web.)
Many smart commentators pointed out that there was no need for David Heinemeier Hansson to introduce the concept of blame into that conversation. Alex Payne's words could have simply been taken as a constructive starting point for a larger conversation about how to scale Rails. But for some reason Hansson felt the need to frame the conversation in terms of accusations and guilt.
The same is true about this conversation, and your reaction. We can have a constructive conversation about increasing diversity in hiring without ever introducing the concept of guilt.
And yet, every time this subject comes up, someone feels the need to frame the whole thing in terms of accusations and guilt. The level of defensiveness on display is remarkable.
Some possibilities:
- The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation.
- Men (white or not) who have worked hard in their education and their profession to be able to work and succeed in tech feel frustrated when their efforts are downplayed or dismissed because they are alleged to be 'playing the game on easy mode'.
- People (male or female, of diverse races and backgrounds) who believe in the value of hard work and have actually seen such work pay off in their profession - i.e. who have experienced meritocracy in action - are frustrated by those who claim that a meritocracy (however imperfect) does not exist and that all tech hiring is biased by some sort of 'old boys network' (which is an insult to women who did well, without whinging, by their own efforts in intellectual labor and networking)
- The implication, stated or not (usually not), is that some people (i.e. white men) hold their jobs in tech because they took a position that rightfully should have gone to a more qualified person of a different group (i.e. woman / racial minority). With the attendant implication that they aren't actually competent and that they only got their position through in-group affiliation.
- Men (white or not) who have worked hard in their education and their profession to be able to work and succeed in tech feel frustrated when their efforts are downplayed or dismissed because they are alleged to be 'playing the game on easy mode'.
- People (male or female, of diverse races and backgrounds) who believe in the value of hard work and have actually seen such work pay off in their profession - i.e. who have experienced meritocracy in action - are frustrated by those who claim that a meritocracy (however imperfect) does not exist and that all tech hiring is biased by some sort of 'old boys network' (which is an insult to women who did well, without whinging, by their own efforts in intellectual labor and networking)
The implication, stated or not (usually not)...
You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).
You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).
Theorique - to my eye, at least - was responding in kind to the academic arguments presented by lkrubner. He presents three possible explanations for the effect that lkrubner discusses. Nowhere in there is a value judgment, only three hypotheses.
A good rule of thumb for when a conversation has become personal and emotions are getting involved is when the word "You" comes up. Conversations that stay on a strictly academic level talk about the ideas involved, not the people who espouse those ideas.
A good rule of thumb for when a conversation has become personal and emotions are getting involved is when the word "You" comes up. Conversations that stay on a strictly academic level talk about the ideas involved, not the people who espouse those ideas.
Ah, the tone argument... I Am Too Emotional, causing me to use Incorrect Words.
Except, here is what lkrubner said, emphasis mine:
The same is true about this conversation, and _your reaction_.
See how we were, in fact, having a thread where we all address each other personally? How you made up an arbitrary rule to discount my comment just because it made you uncomfortable?
Next time, check your own emotional state before jumping with with a lecture on someone else's. And try to argue on substance, not tone, please.
Except, here is what lkrubner said, emphasis mine:
The same is true about this conversation, and _your reaction_.
See how we were, in fact, having a thread where we all address each other personally? How you made up an arbitrary rule to discount my comment just because it made you uncomfortable?
Next time, check your own emotional state before jumping with with a lecture on someone else's. And try to argue on substance, not tone, please.
Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men".
As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry.
Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.
As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry.
Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.
Speaking only to your first point, I don’t think the implication is that the white man holds a job that a better qualified non-white-man should have gotten, I think the implication is often times that the white man should not have gotten the job because it would have been preferable to hire an equally qualified non-white-man solely on the basis of his or her non-white-mannedness. This often makes people defensive (I have been as guilty of this as anyone else, as a white man) because it may seem that they’re being told they are “taking” a job from someone who deserves it more not based on merit or even tangential career skills like networking or interview prowess, but just because they have a different skin color and/or chromosomes.
Postulating "bias" in the hiring process does seem to imply that a non-deserving or less-qualified candidate was hired. Saying that being a non-white-male is itself a merit doesn't change that, and is also highly contentious.
> I'll point out that we could have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt.
The concept of blame was implied with the comment (paraphrased) startup culture is bad for women. That is blaming language, even though the victim was general and the guilt lies with a vague notion of 'culture'.
If you want to avoid discussions of blame it helps to avoid judgmental language.
It's nice when people don't jump to conclusions and talk about guilt and blame when it hasn't been made 100% explicit, on the other hand it's also nice when ideas are followed through to logical conclusions rather than left hanging for others take personally.
The concept of blame was implied with the comment (paraphrased) startup culture is bad for women. That is blaming language, even though the victim was general and the guilt lies with a vague notion of 'culture'.
If you want to avoid discussions of blame it helps to avoid judgmental language.
"$VAGUE_CULTURE is $NEGATIVE_WORD [for $VICTIMS]"
It's nice when people don't jump to conclusions and talk about guilt and blame when it hasn't been made 100% explicit, on the other hand it's also nice when ideas are followed through to logical conclusions rather than left hanging for others take personally.
"Startup culture is bad for women" doesn't imply anything about blame, except maybe blame for failure to change now that that harm is observable. The existence of a harm doesn't imply that it was foreseeable in advance such that there is any moral culpability attached to it.
Yes it does, because everyone participates in culture and culture is an ongoing thing. Or rather: it can be interpreted that way quite easily so don't make a statement like that and then blame people for talking about guilt.
If you don't want people talking about guilt then avoid judgmental language ("bad" in this case, "harm" in yours) until it's very clear that a judgment is necessary. Having an arm amputated in a car accident is "harm", it's "bad". Is not being hired for a position really "harm?" Maybe it is, but unlike bodily injury such a determination is not so trivial to make.
If you don't want people talking about guilt then avoid judgmental language ("bad" in this case, "harm" in yours) until it's very clear that a judgment is necessary. Having an arm amputated in a car accident is "harm", it's "bad". Is not being hired for a position really "harm?" Maybe it is, but unlike bodily injury such a determination is not so trivial to make.
Regarding great conversations being lost to the ages: a great idea for a service is an instant record button that preserves these things, regardless of source. Think pastebin + storify combined. The internet needs an instant record button.
The "mismatch" in dialog about this stuff is perhaps telling.
One person says (essentially): "organization need to take systematic efforts to avoid bias in hiring".
The other person say (essentially): "you can't prove we're sexist, this is a witch hunt".
One person says (essentially): "organization need to take systematic efforts to avoid bias in hiring".
The other person say (essentially): "you can't prove we're sexist, this is a witch hunt".
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of experience with statistically-based bias measures, and it often turns out to be exactly "prove you're not a witch" scenario. While in this particular case failure to prove probably leads to nothing but a blog post or a comment or two, in many other cases it leads to regulations and enforcement actions that can be very unpleasant for the target.
It can have some justifications where we know the bias exists. However, in this case we do not know it, so when people feel the onus of the proof put on them, they don't like it.
It can have some justifications where we know the bias exists. However, in this case we do not know it, so when people feel the onus of the proof put on them, they don't like it.
Not quite.
One person says, "We deliberately handle women with kid gloves. A under-qualified woman has a better chance than an under-qualified man."
A feminist activist responds, "But you still hire more men! Therefore, it's almost a given that you're biased against women in other ways. Fix it."
The original person says, "Wow. We just can't win with you people."
One person says, "We deliberately handle women with kid gloves. A under-qualified woman has a better chance than an under-qualified man."
A feminist activist responds, "But you still hire more men! Therefore, it's almost a given that you're biased against women in other ways. Fix it."
The original person says, "Wow. We just can't win with you people."
If that happened, I could understand it. If you claim the thread above is summarized by that, you're hallucinating.
I simply said that bias can be invisible and it useful to have formal methods for catching it. I don't see myself as a "feminist activist" by any means.
I think the feminist activists who do sometimes uncritically toss around accusations of bias aren't really helping. But when I notice people reading my nuanced position and hallucinating a feminist rant, it increases my sympathies. It also doesn't speak well of people's abilities to see their biases (I wouldn't claim perfection for myself of course but the argument seems involve the claim that some people have no need for formal methods to correct their biases. I beg to differ, everyone needs that).
I simply said that bias can be invisible and it useful to have formal methods for catching it. I don't see myself as a "feminist activist" by any means.
I think the feminist activists who do sometimes uncritically toss around accusations of bias aren't really helping. But when I notice people reading my nuanced position and hallucinating a feminist rant, it increases my sympathies. It also doesn't speak well of people's abilities to see their biases (I wouldn't claim perfection for myself of course but the argument seems involve the claim that some people have no need for formal methods to correct their biases. I beg to differ, everyone needs that).
> but the argument seems involve the claim that some people have no need for formal methods to correct their biases. I beg to differ, everyone needs that
Demanding that everyone has a formal method to correct biases only provable in statistics, really do go back to the "Prove that you're not a witch" argument a few comments ago. The exact same proof can be found against different color of skin, names and clothes. It can be found in parents who has more than one children. Statistical proven biases exist everywhere.
Yet, a formal method should only really be needed once the bias is found to actually exist on a individual level. Everything else would be insane.
Demanding that everyone has a formal method to correct biases only provable in statistics, really do go back to the "Prove that you're not a witch" argument a few comments ago. The exact same proof can be found against different color of skin, names and clothes. It can be found in parents who has more than one children. Statistical proven biases exist everywhere.
Yet, a formal method should only really be needed once the bias is found to actually exist on a individual level. Everything else would be insane.
Yet, a formal method should only really be needed once the bias is found to actually exist on a individual level. Everything else would be insane.
Wouldn't a better approach be incorporating formal, rational methods into everyone's individual thought processes from the beginning? In other words, I believe adopting the overt rationality advocated by the likes of http://lesswrong.com/ would almost automatically correct a lot of societal problems caused by bias.
Wouldn't a better approach be incorporating formal, rational methods into everyone's individual thought processes from the beginning? In other words, I believe adopting the overt rationality advocated by the likes of http://lesswrong.com/ would almost automatically correct a lot of societal problems caused by bias.
[deleted]
Nope. IBM was >30% women engineers when I interned there in 2004/2005. About half the interns were women and there was plenty of racial diversity as well. My boss was a woman, my mentor was a woman, and frankly it was the most diverse place I have ever worked.
I have to say that I dislike it when someone says Bigcorp was like this, that is what Bigcorp's culture is. Having worked in several bigcorps, they are huge, diverse, and it's impossible for one employee to say that their experience is reflective of the entire company. There are differences from department to department, from team to team, and for the multinational bigcorps, from continent to continent. A warehouse worker for Amazon cannot say that they had the same experience as a merchandising agent, and we can't even start to compare those experiences with that of an AWS devops engineer.
When someone says, "My experience at Bigcorp was like this!", we should always tone it down to read it as "My experience on the whatsit team in the whazzat department at Bigcorp was like this!"
Sorry, just had to get that out there.
When someone says, "My experience at Bigcorp was like this!", we should always tone it down to read it as "My experience on the whatsit team in the whazzat department at Bigcorp was like this!"
Sorry, just had to get that out there.
That was in response to:
> In your example, I bet IBM was still predominantly male despite the anecdotal hiring of a few women that you mention.
Responding to someone's completely unsupported generalization with an anecdote to the contrary is still a step up in the conversation. If you're genuinely interested in improving the rigor of the conversation, perhaps you should reply to the grandparent with, "how do you know?"
> In your example, I bet IBM was still predominantly male despite the anecdotal hiring of a few women that you mention.
Responding to someone's completely unsupported generalization with an anecdote to the contrary is still a step up in the conversation. If you're genuinely interested in improving the rigor of the conversation, perhaps you should reply to the grandparent with, "how do you know?"
I think he was referring to a different time frame (1960s-1980s). But he didn't provide evidence so your objection may still be valid.
Google is reportedly over 30% women, too. I wonder if it is just something about startups - higher risk, lower guaranteed reward, worse training programs, higher pressure. The startup world compares well to the original California gold rush - a risk for a small shot at a high reward - and that was mostly male, too.
Also, keep in mind that it's a zero-sum game. If Google and IBM each hire 1,000 female engineers from top schools, that means that startups get less diverse.
Also, keep in mind that it's a zero-sum game. If Google and IBM each hire 1,000 female engineers from top schools, that means that startups get less diverse.
> I wonder if it is just something about startups - higher risk, lower guaranteed reward, worse training programs, higher pressure.
This is explained equally well by inexperienced managers hiring people similar to themselves culturally, racially, and socioeconomically. Likewise, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to work on a team with five dudes oblivious to their dude-dom.
This is explained equally well by inexperienced managers hiring people similar to themselves culturally, racially, and socioeconomically. Likewise, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to work on a team with five dudes oblivious to their dude-dom.
Who in their right mind would want to work on a team of highly-intelligent, socially-challenged, culturally-homogeneous young men whose experience to date is primarily steeped in the casual misogyny, homophobia, and racism of MMORPG chat-channels; dorm-room bike-shedding; and adolescent dude-bro jokes?
If they're good coders, sure. I can ignore work-unrelated stupidity, but if I have to work with someone incompetent at their job that becomes very unpleasant very quickly.
I'll just note that coding is actually more a collaborative activity than a solitary one, so the 'socially challenged' are not very likely to be 'good coders'.
It becomes unpleasant very quickly regardless of the quality of the skills of the programmers.
The irony of being sexist in this HN thread is breaking my mind man.
Across all cultures (perhaps across all of history), women are more risk averse.
In fact, feminist activists didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor.
Only then did it become scandalous that young women were choosing different career paths (but interestingly, the fact that young women are earning more than young men and graduating from college in far greater rates than young men isn't scandalous).
In fact, feminist activists didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor.
Only then did it become scandalous that young women were choosing different career paths (but interestingly, the fact that young women are earning more than young men and graduating from college in far greater rates than young men isn't scandalous).
women are more risk averse
I think this is misleading. Men and women face different risks, and heterodox strategies are not indicative of very much. First, you need to be careful how you infer "risk taking" from "not taking the same bets", because the actual riks taken is a portfolio riks calculation which is blind. Second, you don't have any data to infer anyrthing about the quality of the risk taking they are in fact taking; that is in terms of actual/realize and even provability weighted expected returns. To give one crass example, a women could take a strategy of legal ownership of "high risk realized assets" through marriage. This is a "high-risk strategy", but it is also empirically true that many rich men are married.[1] Of course, the odds of success in this strategy are also not evenly distributed amongst women as a group, either. Another person could look at that and say that marriage to a rich person is a "risk avoidance" strategy...and again, this may or may not be true. Because wealth and genetic fitness need not correlate, and so your frame of reference on the purpose of strategy quickly turns into quite a bit more complex calculation.
[1] Marriage as a legal contract has a financial value; a derivative, with contingent claims on of the underlying (asset) value of couple's cumulative/aggregate incomes.
I think this is misleading. Men and women face different risks, and heterodox strategies are not indicative of very much. First, you need to be careful how you infer "risk taking" from "not taking the same bets", because the actual riks taken is a portfolio riks calculation which is blind. Second, you don't have any data to infer anyrthing about the quality of the risk taking they are in fact taking; that is in terms of actual/realize and even provability weighted expected returns. To give one crass example, a women could take a strategy of legal ownership of "high risk realized assets" through marriage. This is a "high-risk strategy", but it is also empirically true that many rich men are married.[1] Of course, the odds of success in this strategy are also not evenly distributed amongst women as a group, either. Another person could look at that and say that marriage to a rich person is a "risk avoidance" strategy...and again, this may or may not be true. Because wealth and genetic fitness need not correlate, and so your frame of reference on the purpose of strategy quickly turns into quite a bit more complex calculation.
[1] Marriage as a legal contract has a financial value; a derivative, with contingent claims on of the underlying (asset) value of couple's cumulative/aggregate incomes.
Do you have any evidence to back up your broad-brushed claims?
And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?
And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?
5 minutes of googling:
"MEN, WOMEN AND RISK AVERSION:EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" - http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_Ind_3.pdf
"Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in Humans" - http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf
Reality fits egalitarian beliefs quite poorly.
"MEN, WOMEN AND RISK AVERSION:EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" - http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_Ind_3.pdf
"Sex Differences in Everyday Risk-Taking Behavior in Humans" - http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep062942.pdf
Reality fits egalitarian beliefs quite poorly.
You've obviously made a serious study of this and that's why you have such justifiably strong opinions on the matter. Can you do 10 minutes of googling next time and share more? Or maybe 20?! Think of how informed you'd be after 20 minutes!
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe.
It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
> If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe.
There's plenty of room between "justify everything from first principles" and "perform an ad hoc 5-minute search of the web for research that confirms what I already believe." I'd also say, the closer one is to the former, the more justified one is in feeling certain about their beliefs.
> It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
That's good, because nobody here is advocating that!
> Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
Well, as they say, "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen."
What's "common sense," here? That women are more risk-averse? I disagree, at the very least until one defines "risk" and "risk-averse" very precisely. My "common sense" tells me otherwise. Shucks. Ain't that the problem with "common sense?"
There's plenty of room between "justify everything from first principles" and "perform an ad hoc 5-minute search of the web for research that confirms what I already believe." I'd also say, the closer one is to the former, the more justified one is in feeling certain about their beliefs.
> It's pretty difficult to have a serious conversation if you have to fully define and prove every single piece of content in a comment.
That's good, because nobody here is advocating that!
> Common sense is getting to be pretty rare around here.
Well, as they say, "Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen."
What's "common sense," here? That women are more risk-averse? I disagree, at the very least until one defines "risk" and "risk-averse" very precisely. My "common sense" tells me otherwise. Shucks. Ain't that the problem with "common sense?"
I think part of the reason these discussions never get anywhere is because of blatant dishonesty in discussions. You actually think there is no "feminist activist" movement?
I don't, and I never made that claim because it's insane. I object to the idea that "feminist activists" "didn't push to get more women into tech until tech was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor."
There's a claim "women are more risk averse", and another claim "feminist activists exist", both of which are feasibly true, that do not lead to general conclusion that "feminist activists did not push to get more women into tech until it was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor". Which is a broad, unsupported argument, for which the data directly contradicts:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
There's a claim "women are more risk averse", and another claim "feminist activists exist", both of which are feasibly true, that do not lead to general conclusion that "feminist activists did not push to get more women into tech until it was a higher paying, lower risk endeavor". Which is a broad, unsupported argument, for which the data directly contradicts:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/it-careers/21993/women-comput...
I must be confused or misinterpreted you.
"And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?"
I took that to mean (generally) that the idea that there is such a thing as a legitimate feminist activist is nonsense - that in reality any reference to one is as part of a straw man argument. Not what you were saying?
"And who are these "feminist activist" strawmen(straw-women?) you have set up?"
I took that to mean (generally) that the idea that there is such a thing as a legitimate feminist activist is nonsense - that in reality any reference to one is as part of a straw man argument. Not what you were saying?
What I meant was that he was characterizing all feminist activists as wanting or doing X (X being unsupported, anyways), which seems to me to be an unfair generalization and an easy to knock down, stereotypical villain.
I should have clarified in the original post, apologies.
I should have clarified in the original post, apologies.
> women are more risk averse.
When was the last time you did something as risky as get pregnant?
When was the last time you did something as risky as get pregnant?
google may be 30% women overall but I would be shocked if that where true of engineering; Rachel of rachel by the bay definitely didn't have that experience
30% is probably including sales org, it is high for engineering. Anyway, consider the difference between 2-3 women of 12 people in an startup, vs 200 of 1000 in a big company, where women may cluster on some teams, or have "dotted line" relationships outside their official hierarchy.
> The company was still 90% men in engineering, because that's what your talent pipeline looks like.
Same here. I think we've hired all the women who have applied for Dev jobs as we expanded though not because of any positive discrimination (as far as I know, though hiring/firing is out of my remit). All two of them.
I get the impression that women are put off a career in the sort of technical role we need (or, to look at it the other way around, are drawn to other things) fairly early in their education. Those that stick with it are determined so tend to end up making the effort and being damn good, but the rest end up thinking it isn't for them for more so than boys in a similar position. A lot of that is going to be cultural (the "boys toys" attitude mainly) but I see this falling away as personal technology has become much more ubiquitous in the last decade or so with everyone having/wanting flashy phones, tablets, and other techie toys. The proportion of my younger family members' female friends who are specifically/actively interested in a technical profession seems much higher than was the case when I was that sort of age about 18 years ago (though game designer and game tester are the main dreams there, I'm not sure how to tell them about the disparity between their expectations and the level of stress people are under in that part of the industry!).
> I'm sure they were secret sexists. Valleywag would write a scathing article about them.
I think we are pretty much not sexist, or anything-else-ist for that matter, but in a way that might be a problem for some. I don't know if this holds industry wide, but our sense of humour can be quite non-PC though it is applied fairly: all stereotypes (gender, age, country, size, religion, diet, hair, ...) are fair game for a joke and we don't tend to reign it in for any particular group or individual (though we aren't completely heartless in that regard). No harm is meant and no-one has thus far taken offence but I imagine there are some sensitive souls out there who would find it makes for an environment uncomfortable to work in (so one of these days it might cause problems if someone goes too far and someone does take significant offence, I can certainly imagine circumstances where that might happen).
Same here. I think we've hired all the women who have applied for Dev jobs as we expanded though not because of any positive discrimination (as far as I know, though hiring/firing is out of my remit). All two of them.
I get the impression that women are put off a career in the sort of technical role we need (or, to look at it the other way around, are drawn to other things) fairly early in their education. Those that stick with it are determined so tend to end up making the effort and being damn good, but the rest end up thinking it isn't for them for more so than boys in a similar position. A lot of that is going to be cultural (the "boys toys" attitude mainly) but I see this falling away as personal technology has become much more ubiquitous in the last decade or so with everyone having/wanting flashy phones, tablets, and other techie toys. The proportion of my younger family members' female friends who are specifically/actively interested in a technical profession seems much higher than was the case when I was that sort of age about 18 years ago (though game designer and game tester are the main dreams there, I'm not sure how to tell them about the disparity between their expectations and the level of stress people are under in that part of the industry!).
> I'm sure they were secret sexists. Valleywag would write a scathing article about them.
I think we are pretty much not sexist, or anything-else-ist for that matter, but in a way that might be a problem for some. I don't know if this holds industry wide, but our sense of humour can be quite non-PC though it is applied fairly: all stereotypes (gender, age, country, size, religion, diet, hair, ...) are fair game for a joke and we don't tend to reign it in for any particular group or individual (though we aren't completely heartless in that regard). No harm is meant and no-one has thus far taken offence but I imagine there are some sensitive souls out there who would find it makes for an environment uncomfortable to work in (so one of these days it might cause problems if someone goes too far and someone does take significant offence, I can certainly imagine circumstances where that might happen).
IBM may have been, but women of that era made it to CTO and CEO. (IBM has had other issues so I am not defending)
I have to thank Valleywag for doing me the favor of helping me prune people who lack reading comprehension from twitter. I'm still kind of amazed how so many people un-ironically cited valleywag in their tweets.
It's pretty obvious what pg was saying in this particular "smoking gun" quote: that figuring out a way to get more girls interested in programming at 13 is an incredibly important and hard problem. The willingness for people to quickly swallow and parrot a 1-dimensional narrative of "Paul Graham, sexist pig" based upon a few quotes taken out of context in a highly edited, 3rd hand rage-blog by fucking Vallywag is the type of behavior I expect from political spinmeister hacks trotted out on the 24 hour news channels, not from smart people who I respect.
It's pretty obvious what pg was saying in this particular "smoking gun" quote: that figuring out a way to get more girls interested in programming at 13 is an incredibly important and hard problem. The willingness for people to quickly swallow and parrot a 1-dimensional narrative of "Paul Graham, sexist pig" based upon a few quotes taken out of context in a highly edited, 3rd hand rage-blog by fucking Vallywag is the type of behavior I expect from political spinmeister hacks trotted out on the 24 hour news channels, not from smart people who I respect.
I agree, and it strikes me as ironic the massive tidal wave of hate that arises whenever anyone violates a What You Can't Say in our industry. I understand the reasons for it in general, and sometimes it's even deserved (eg confirmed cases of sexual harassment at conferences).
But it seems to me to be directly counter productive to the stated goals. We want to be more accepting and open as an industry? How about having some fucking maturity!? How about calmly discussing ideas with people that mean well? Even if they're wrong?
Even Hacker News, once the bastion of calm, rational discussion, has devolved into a bar room brawl whenever gender issues are talked about. Hundreds of posts to a topic, many really fucking mean and almost all black and white strawman bullshit, within an hour before it's manually killed off by a moderator.
There are plenty of smart, competent women (and men) in college who have the pick of their field. My sister was one. They could easily learn to code (or already do) and come here. But if we act like children at a drop of a hat, why on earth would they want to?
But it seems to me to be directly counter productive to the stated goals. We want to be more accepting and open as an industry? How about having some fucking maturity!? How about calmly discussing ideas with people that mean well? Even if they're wrong?
Even Hacker News, once the bastion of calm, rational discussion, has devolved into a bar room brawl whenever gender issues are talked about. Hundreds of posts to a topic, many really fucking mean and almost all black and white strawman bullshit, within an hour before it's manually killed off by a moderator.
There are plenty of smart, competent women (and men) in college who have the pick of their field. My sister was one. They could easily learn to code (or already do) and come here. But if we act like children at a drop of a hat, why on earth would they want to?
Your closing question really seems like the wrong one to ask to me. The bottom line is that some people do learn to code and come here nevertheless. Why on earth do they want to, and why is it that their reasoning isn't equally applicable for the complementary set of women-(and-men) you speak of?
My post was only intended to critique a very specific toxic behavior, and the closing question an attempt to demonstrate its severity.
I agree that it's the wrong question to ask in order to attempt to solve the problem in general.
I agree that it's the wrong question to ask in order to attempt to solve the problem in general.
But valleywag's point -- in the new, unfortunately Owen Thomas less incarnation -- is to find a quote from an engineer or executive associated with silicon valley that could be construed as sexist, or racist, or discriminatory to someone (and no worries if said quote must be taken wildly out of context) then pitch a fit about it. For a perfect example from [1], see [2]. So Nitashu happened upon Paul wondering about the low presence of women in the engineer pipeline and it was perfect. They are people who stole the fox news business model and pointed it at silicon valley.
Even when the complaints are legitimate, there's plenty to complain about in the valley, but characterizing us via the worst examples you can find is their stock in trade. A good 2014 resolution is to stop hoping Sam or Nitashu will turn into Owen and to ignore gawker.
[1] http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-de...
[2] http://valleywag.gawker.com/twitter-employees-dont-talk-abou...
Even when the complaints are legitimate, there's plenty to complain about in the valley, but characterizing us via the worst examples you can find is their stock in trade. A good 2014 resolution is to stop hoping Sam or Nitashu will turn into Owen and to ignore gawker.
[1] http://pando.com/2013/12/26/look-whos-gawking-inside-nick-de...
[2] http://valleywag.gawker.com/twitter-employees-dont-talk-abou...
Right, but when he had a chance to comment again to defend his statements, he instead went after the angle of saving himself rather than addressing the issue at the core.
He could have talked about the work he's doing to help girls learn to code. He could have talked about others' work to help girls learn code. He could have talked about how he is not biased towards men.
Instead, he just attacked journalists in general and didn't bother to address the root problem. It's all about saving oneself.
He could have talked about the work he's doing to help girls learn to code. He could have talked about others' work to help girls learn code. He could have talked about how he is not biased towards men.
Instead, he just attacked journalists in general and didn't bother to address the root problem. It's all about saving oneself.
The root problem is that when he tried talking about the root problem, his words were taken out of context and used against him. There's no way to win with character assassins and tabloids, and calling them out as people who don't discuss issues in good faith is the best you can do.
Where did this happen? This article is a blog by Fred Wilson.
[deleted]
I always cringe when someone famous gets attacked by the political correctness Nazis -- usually the reaction by them is appeasement, which only makes the general cultural situation worse.
Nazi is the correct term, because political correctness is really just a tool, a fascist like device, to shut down discourse and debate.
Apparently the definition of sexism is now just not telling women what they want to hear. The vast majority of the criticism of pg's answer that I saw wasn't even claiming that he was wrong, but just calling him sexist because his answer wasn't masturbatory enough. C.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1840377
Pretty much. The definition of sexism also involves endless discussions about the almost last job category still ruled by the evil patriarchy - computer engineers - among the 15 projected to grow the most over the next decade [1]. For the record, the only other male dominated job category is janitors but I somehow doubt it faces similar outrage by the gender equality knight templars.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-...
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-...
For what it's worth, that statistic isn't actually true. While computer engineers may be expected to be one of the fastest growing employment categories by percent, the number of computer engineers are relatively tiny. So in fact way more jobs are going to be added in careers that are projected to have only a couple percent growth. By absolute numbers, computer engineers aren't even in the top 30 careers for anticipated growth. C.f. page 18: http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Underemploy...
> For the record, the only other male dominated job category is janitors but I somehow doubt it faces similar outrage by the gender equality knight templars.
I'm really curious where you got this information because it doesn't agree with anything else I've read. Among other things, about 75% of US doctors are male[1].
[1] http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/1078/
I'm really curious where you got this information because it doesn't agree with anything else I've read. Among other things, about 75% of US doctors are male[1].
[1] http://www.hschange.com/CONTENT/1078/
That's of the 15 job categories expected to grow the most over the next decade. Doctors likely aren't one of those high-growth categories.
People lose their jobs for this kind of shit, it is ridiculous.
I don't think we've come anywhere close to rejecting the hypothesis of some kind of innate personality and ability differences between male and female. Men are higher represented in diseases like autism, which involve lower social functioning/higher affinity for the abstract. Men score higher on Math SAT[1], despite the school system being tilted more and more in favor of female.
More women than men graduate from college and women have flooded into traditionally male majors in the sciences. There are plenty of female biologists and doctors. But they have not penetrated the most mathy majors, like engineering or Math itself.
Maybe men and women aren't interchangeable cogs, and some combination of difference in interest and average ability will always mean that the way to get females into your tech company is by having a big non-software department.
[1] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
More women than men graduate from college and women have flooded into traditionally male majors in the sciences. There are plenty of female biologists and doctors. But they have not penetrated the most mathy majors, like engineering or Math itself.
Maybe men and women aren't interchangeable cogs, and some combination of difference in interest and average ability will always mean that the way to get females into your tech company is by having a big non-software department.
[1] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
This is interesting:
Of the 100 top academic authors in computer science today, per Microsoft, 96 are male: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=2...
The owner of this site appears to be a woman. Again, 20 males: http://www.bestcomputersciencedegrees.com/author/2admin/
And there is a preponderance of white males in the annals of computer history: http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm
Even among software professionals, there is divergence in the types of roles women take vs. men. Search LinkedIn (3rd & everyone else) for SQA, and you get about 25% women. Search "Full Stack" and you get about 10% women.
Is this really YC's problem to solve?
The owner of this site appears to be a woman. Again, 20 males: http://www.bestcomputersciencedegrees.com/author/2admin/
And there is a preponderance of white males in the annals of computer history: http://inventors.about.com/library/blcoindex.htm
Even among software professionals, there is divergence in the types of roles women take vs. men. Search LinkedIn (3rd & everyone else) for SQA, and you get about 25% women. Search "Full Stack" and you get about 10% women.
Is this really YC's problem to solve?
> Is this really YC's problem to solve?
I think it's up to everyone to do their part. This problem, like all big problems, is made up of lots of little problems.
I think it's up to everyone to do their part. This problem, like all big problems, is made up of lots of little problems.
I don't think there is much they can do.
A similar review of Human Resources professionals, also courtesy LinkedIn, shows about 70% are women.
In another report, in 2013, 41% of college seniors that elected majors in Physical Science were women. Yet, only 18% of those who chose computer science or engineering were women. It seems they'd be equally capable in chemistry and physics as in computer science and engineer. But their major choices indicate it is not about ability and something else is going on:
http://www.directemployers.org/2012/08/16/the-college-class-...
I believe that the whole dust up is a matter of gender-based difference in interests. Nothing more, and not a real problem. Which is why YC is scratching their heads about how to solve it.
A similar review of Human Resources professionals, also courtesy LinkedIn, shows about 70% are women.
In another report, in 2013, 41% of college seniors that elected majors in Physical Science were women. Yet, only 18% of those who chose computer science or engineering were women. It seems they'd be equally capable in chemistry and physics as in computer science and engineer. But their major choices indicate it is not about ability and something else is going on:
http://www.directemployers.org/2012/08/16/the-college-class-...
I believe that the whole dust up is a matter of gender-based difference in interests. Nothing more, and not a real problem. Which is why YC is scratching their heads about how to solve it.
> I believe that the whole dust up is a matter of gender-based difference in interests. Nothing more, and not a real problem. Which is why YC is scratching their heads about how to solve it.
This argument doesn't entirely follow and in my opinion unfairly misrepresents pg's position. Pg hasn't said that there is no "real problem", what he said was that he didn't know what he could do to solve it.
Personally I have witnessed a lot of sexism and even discrimination, so I don't believe there is no real problem. Maybe women are less interested in computer science than men, but maybe a few of them drop out due to the pervasiveness of sexism in the field? Or maybe interest would be higher if it didn't have this reputation?
This argument doesn't entirely follow and in my opinion unfairly misrepresents pg's position. Pg hasn't said that there is no "real problem", what he said was that he didn't know what he could do to solve it.
Personally I have witnessed a lot of sexism and even discrimination, so I don't believe there is no real problem. Maybe women are less interested in computer science than men, but maybe a few of them drop out due to the pervasiveness of sexism in the field? Or maybe interest would be higher if it didn't have this reputation?
I am certain that a few have dropped out due to sexism and discrimination. And certain that a few others have tried and found that the social aspects of working in a team of programmers, even polite, respectful ones, is just not rewarding.
Can we hear from those who felt kept or pushed out, please? If it is a real problem, where are the marches and movements and leaders at the podium? I suppose they don't hang out on HN, but they should be high profile, given that the media seems to be really interested in this story.
Here's a recent, related article (October, 2013) with a few anecdotes. http://www.businessinsider.com/7-things-keeping-women-out-of...
There is one comment. From a guy.
Can we hear from those who felt kept or pushed out, please? If it is a real problem, where are the marches and movements and leaders at the podium? I suppose they don't hang out on HN, but they should be high profile, given that the media seems to be really interested in this story.
Here's a recent, related article (October, 2013) with a few anecdotes. http://www.businessinsider.com/7-things-keeping-women-out-of...
There is one comment. From a guy.
How does your "gender-based difference in interests" explain the last thirty years of (proportional) decline in women majoring in CS?
30 years is plenty of time for the interests of a demographic to shift.
It's also shifted downwards among females majoring in the humanities, but no one cares—there's no "Girls Read" initiatives, for example.
That's why trends are just not that useful in convincing people, especially people whose job it is to be logical week in, week out, and to generalize aggressively.
So these people look at you say "the trend is down" and then see you make that a primary reason for action, and then they immediately go and look at all the trends, and then notice the participation trend is down even more in the humanities among women (also having peaked in the early 80s, which makes me wonder what changed then), but regardless, they also see that the downward participation trend in the humanities is not a reason for action there, and wonder WTF? It seems like special pleading, because it is.
There are good reasons for promoting CS to females today (as ever), but "the numbers show a downward trend in CS" is not one of them.
That's why trends are just not that useful in convincing people, especially people whose job it is to be logical week in, week out, and to generalize aggressively.
So these people look at you say "the trend is down" and then see you make that a primary reason for action, and then they immediately go and look at all the trends, and then notice the participation trend is down even more in the humanities among women (also having peaked in the early 80s, which makes me wonder what changed then), but regardless, they also see that the downward participation trend in the humanities is not a reason for action there, and wonder WTF? It seems like special pleading, because it is.
There are good reasons for promoting CS to females today (as ever), but "the numbers show a downward trend in CS" is not one of them.
What company has Fred Wilson ever started?
In tech, saying anything about gender is an opportunity to be lambasted vigorously. But I think I can contribute something.
Having read what I could over the years on the academic side of "women in tech" (i.e., academic research studying the matter, rather than opinion pieces), the consensus seems to be that the early teens are the time where the decision is taken to move away (or not) from STEM fields. That is part of why the Girls Who Code initiative & others like it is such a big deal.
There are a lot of different factors and stereotypes playing into the decision to exit STEM tracks, but among them are - "unpleasant male geeks", "programmers work alone", "girls don't need to know math", "boys figure things out" and so forth. (Clearly these are a subset of examples, and also clearly not all of these are 100% influential for any particular person, place, time). So the stereotypical 13 y/o girl and her interest in STEM is actually the target of a lot of research and policy efforts.
There's also a self-reinforcing aspect to this: heavily gender-coded places aren't typically presenting a welcome to people of the other gender. I read a academic paper on this in the last several years, but can't recall the experiment in detail or the citation. The implication is that a workspace festooned with seriously masculine widgets often tells many women that, "hey, man cave here. not so welcome".
For the interested person, the academic experiments are usually well done and their results, while not always surprising, clearly quantify certain sexist aspects in the tech world.
Having read what I could over the years on the academic side of "women in tech" (i.e., academic research studying the matter, rather than opinion pieces), the consensus seems to be that the early teens are the time where the decision is taken to move away (or not) from STEM fields. That is part of why the Girls Who Code initiative & others like it is such a big deal.
There are a lot of different factors and stereotypes playing into the decision to exit STEM tracks, but among them are - "unpleasant male geeks", "programmers work alone", "girls don't need to know math", "boys figure things out" and so forth. (Clearly these are a subset of examples, and also clearly not all of these are 100% influential for any particular person, place, time). So the stereotypical 13 y/o girl and her interest in STEM is actually the target of a lot of research and policy efforts.
There's also a self-reinforcing aspect to this: heavily gender-coded places aren't typically presenting a welcome to people of the other gender. I read a academic paper on this in the last several years, but can't recall the experiment in detail or the citation. The implication is that a workspace festooned with seriously masculine widgets often tells many women that, "hey, man cave here. not so welcome".
For the interested person, the academic experiments are usually well done and their results, while not always surprising, clearly quantify certain sexist aspects in the tech world.
If you have some links to the studies you have read, I would be really interested to read them.
Thank you
Thank you
I apologize, I do not. I read widely and generally do not maintain an annotated bibliography of what I read. Perhaps I should.
I try to, surprisingly it's quite useful even outside of this small use-case. Evernote or OneNotes clipping functionality is perfect for it. Give it a try, even if only for a few weeks, it's super useful IMO!
The last paper mentioned is likely one by Sapna Cheryan. She gives an overview of her work on stereotypes, identity, and computer science on her homepage[0] as well as links to relevant papers.
[0] http://faculty.washington.edu/scheryan/research.htm
[0] http://faculty.washington.edu/scheryan/research.htm
Yup, Cheryan, Plaut, Davies, & Steele, 2009 is what I was referring to. Thanks for the link.
[deleted]
When I hear about this being a cultural thing, an important aspect people leave out is that men aren't exactly encouraged to be coders either. Writing code has pretty much no social cred until you're out of school, and pretty much automatically gets you tagged as a nerd. No coder I know started coding because it was cool, they just sort of enjoyed it and accepted the social consequences.
I'm just going to throw this out here: only about 10% of nurses are male. Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses. Same goes for elementary school teachers. Why is that?
Just because there's a gender imbalance doesn't necessarily mean anyone is keeping anyone out. And if a few insensitive comments can keep you from doing what you want to do in life, maybe that's something you have to deal with -- there's always going to be haters no matter what you want to do.
I'm just going to throw this out here: only about 10% of nurses are male. Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses. Same goes for elementary school teachers. Why is that?
Just because there's a gender imbalance doesn't necessarily mean anyone is keeping anyone out. And if a few insensitive comments can keep you from doing what you want to do in life, maybe that's something you have to deal with -- there's always going to be haters no matter what you want to do.
> I'm just going to throw this out here: only about 10% of nurses are male. Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses.
Perhaps because you mostly read tech news sites, and not nursing news sites. This stuff (in both tech and nursing) rarely reaches the mainstream news sources, so people not involved in the industry generally are unaware of it.
Definitely it is well known that there is a shortage of men in nursing as well as in clinical psychology for example, and many in those industries think their industries would be better off with more men, and make efforts to change things. Some random links:
https://asunews.asu.edu/20121130_meninnursing
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/health/22therapists.html?p...
I have a background in psychology, so I know less about the nursing situation, but in psychology it's definitely a topic that comes up. Which is not surprising, the gender disparity is very large: When I was an undergrad, I was in a small minority, somewhere in 10-20%, and it can be an odd feeling.
Perhaps because you mostly read tech news sites, and not nursing news sites. This stuff (in both tech and nursing) rarely reaches the mainstream news sources, so people not involved in the industry generally are unaware of it.
Definitely it is well known that there is a shortage of men in nursing as well as in clinical psychology for example, and many in those industries think their industries would be better off with more men, and make efforts to change things. Some random links:
https://asunews.asu.edu/20121130_meninnursing
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/health/22therapists.html?p...
I have a background in psychology, so I know less about the nursing situation, but in psychology it's definitely a topic that comes up. Which is not surprising, the gender disparity is very large: When I was an undergrad, I was in a small minority, somewhere in 10-20%, and it can be an odd feeling.
Perhaps because you mostly read tech news sites, and not nursing news sites. This stuff (in both tech and nursing) rarely reaches the mainstream news sources, so people not involved in the industry generally are unaware of it.
That's a good point.
However, I was watching something on TV just yesterday about getting women into programming. My perception is that trying to get more women into programming is a much more popular issue than getting men into nursing.
If we kept up with industry news would we observe more "get women to be garbage collectors" and "get men into preschool education" news?
That's a good point.
However, I was watching something on TV just yesterday about getting women into programming. My perception is that trying to get more women into programming is a much more popular issue than getting men into nursing.
If we kept up with industry news would we observe more "get women to be garbage collectors" and "get men into preschool education" news?
One thing to realize here is that the industries are not symmetrical. There are billionaires and billion-dollar companies in the tech industry (as well as many many non-rich but still very well off engineers that can each donate money), but nothing like that in nursing or psychology or garbage collection or preschool education.
So the tech industry, if it want to, can pour large sums of money into its causes (as we see in the topic of this discussion, but also many others). And it can make sure the mainstream press notices them. Whereas even if the psychology community wants desperately to get more men to join its ranks, it just doesn't have the resources the tech industry has.
It also is not just money. The tech industry is the industry that makes websites, that builds twitter and facebook and all that. Initiatives in the tech industry have an inherent advantage over initiatives in other industries, which have to make the effort to find some tech person to build their online presence.
So it is not surprising to me at all that initiatives in the tech industry are more noticeable than from other industries. The tech industry is special in many ways.
Edit: An example of an industry with even more power and noticeability than tech is hollywood, which has both money and famous+popular people in it. That's why we hear about all the various initiatives this or that actor is up to.
So the tech industry, if it want to, can pour large sums of money into its causes (as we see in the topic of this discussion, but also many others). And it can make sure the mainstream press notices them. Whereas even if the psychology community wants desperately to get more men to join its ranks, it just doesn't have the resources the tech industry has.
It also is not just money. The tech industry is the industry that makes websites, that builds twitter and facebook and all that. Initiatives in the tech industry have an inherent advantage over initiatives in other industries, which have to make the effort to find some tech person to build their online presence.
So it is not surprising to me at all that initiatives in the tech industry are more noticeable than from other industries. The tech industry is special in many ways.
Edit: An example of an industry with even more power and noticeability than tech is hollywood, which has both money and famous+popular people in it. That's why we hear about all the various initiatives this or that actor is up to.
> However, I was watching something on TV just yesterday about getting women into programming. My perception is that trying to get more women into programming is a much more popular issue than getting men into nursing.
Sure, you see it on TV more because it better fits a canned mass media narrative about the progress of women into male-dominated, well-paid, percieved-as-high-status professions. That doesn't mean its considered more of a focus in the relevant professions.
Its a mistake to assume that the frequency and intensity with which something appears in the mass media is somehow a reliable guide to anything about its significance outside mass media.
> If we kept up with industry news would we observe more "get women to be garbage collectors" and "get men into preschool education" news?
Garbage collectors I'm less sure of, but, yes, getting more men into most all levels of secondary-and-earlier education is a not-insignificant issue.
Sure, you see it on TV more because it better fits a canned mass media narrative about the progress of women into male-dominated, well-paid, percieved-as-high-status professions. That doesn't mean its considered more of a focus in the relevant professions.
Its a mistake to assume that the frequency and intensity with which something appears in the mass media is somehow a reliable guide to anything about its significance outside mass media.
> If we kept up with industry news would we observe more "get women to be garbage collectors" and "get men into preschool education" news?
Garbage collectors I'm less sure of, but, yes, getting more men into most all levels of secondary-and-earlier education is a not-insignificant issue.
Have you ever heard the phrase "one thing is not like the other?" I think that might apply here.
Psychology is still very male-dominated, at least in terms of employers, teachers, and researchers — i.e. people in power in the industry.
Yep, and a series of uncomfortable truths about how things work against men (specially Asian men) who are trying to learn to code:
1. At school and such, no one tries to encourage you to code. People naturally think, "Oh, male and Asian, screw him, the world doesn't need another Asian dude coding. Let's try and teach Rails to that cute girl -- we need more of her kind."
2. People assume you are better at coding, math, and suchlike, and are more strident in their criticism of you when you fail to live up to their standards. I have had people tell me "yeah, if you can't understand this, you might not be smart enough". Think of the brouhaha that would result (gasp!) if someone said that to a girl.
3. You are naturally left out of all of the outreach events. Everyone is trying to get more women into coding, for some yet-as-undefined goal (getting exactly 51% women, maybe?). But you -- you are just another male nerd, and you have apparently had a red carpet laid out for you to the world of coding, so you must be privileged.
There are tons of jobs that are female dominated. Nursing? Teaching? Fashion? Yet no one's complaining that there aren't enough men on the editorial staff of Cosmopolitan magazine, or starting movements for "Men Who Are Interested In Fashion". Draw your own conclusions from this.
1. At school and such, no one tries to encourage you to code. People naturally think, "Oh, male and Asian, screw him, the world doesn't need another Asian dude coding. Let's try and teach Rails to that cute girl -- we need more of her kind."
2. People assume you are better at coding, math, and suchlike, and are more strident in their criticism of you when you fail to live up to their standards. I have had people tell me "yeah, if you can't understand this, you might not be smart enough". Think of the brouhaha that would result (gasp!) if someone said that to a girl.
3. You are naturally left out of all of the outreach events. Everyone is trying to get more women into coding, for some yet-as-undefined goal (getting exactly 51% women, maybe?). But you -- you are just another male nerd, and you have apparently had a red carpet laid out for you to the world of coding, so you must be privileged.
There are tons of jobs that are female dominated. Nursing? Teaching? Fashion? Yet no one's complaining that there aren't enough men on the editorial staff of Cosmopolitan magazine, or starting movements for "Men Who Are Interested In Fashion". Draw your own conclusions from this.
Also to add to the Asian part (Chinese in particular in my case), CS is still too new to be a particularly esteemed profession in Chinese culture, and I don't think I'm alone in having parents and a large extended family that pressured me hard to pursue a conservative, high income, esteemed profession instead such as medicine, finance, accounting, or law. Having graduated right after the dotcom bubble crashed certainly didn't help either, and was pretty close to taking a first job in accounting, as my parents convinced me that tech was dead-end. I finally put my foot down after realizing I would have been miserable doing anything other than tech, and it took quite a lot of time and effort before my parents accepted my career choice. However, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would have ended up in tech sooner or later no matter what happened.
I'm not saying that having pushy Asian parents is the same as having to face gender discrimination, but simply that CS is not simply handed on a silver platter to all men either.
I'm not saying that having pushy Asian parents is the same as having to face gender discrimination, but simply that CS is not simply handed on a silver platter to all men either.
That surprises me - my Electrical/Computer Engineering classes had a substantial proportion of Asian students (primarily Chinese).
My friends and classmates of Asian background seemed to have families who were delighted and supportive that they were studying something technical and 'practical'.
My friends and classmates of Asian background seemed to have families who were delighted and supportive that they were studying something technical and 'practical'.
> Yet no one's complaining
Plenty of people are complaining. You just don't see it because you're surrounding yourself in this little bubble of tech and startups and coding. The least you could have done, if not a simple Google search, was scroll three inches down before you replied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981113
There are plenty of initiatives to get more men into nursing and teaching and fashion. Even if there weren't, why does that matter? It has nothing to do with this industry's problems. We don't need every other industry to be fixing itself before we do.
That's not even touching on your victim-complex of an argument about men coding. You must be pretty deep in that bubble.
Plenty of people are complaining. You just don't see it because you're surrounding yourself in this little bubble of tech and startups and coding. The least you could have done, if not a simple Google search, was scroll three inches down before you replied: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6981113
There are plenty of initiatives to get more men into nursing and teaching and fashion. Even if there weren't, why does that matter? It has nothing to do with this industry's problems. We don't need every other industry to be fixing itself before we do.
That's not even touching on your victim-complex of an argument about men coding. You must be pretty deep in that bubble.
> There are plenty of initiatives to get more men into nursing and teaching and fashion.
Show me the equivalent of initiatives like "Rails Girls" or "Girls Who Code", or "Github's free private repos for women" for male teachers or nurses. A halfhearted list of platitudes from a Dean at ASU and an NYTimes article != actual effort. Look at the list of sponsors on this page. http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/ and show me something even remotely equivalent for nursing, or fashion.
> Even if there weren't, why does that matter? It has nothing to do with this industry's problems. We don't need every other industry to be fixing itself before we do.
I might turn that around and say, "Well, if other industries, specially female-dominated ones aren't rushing to be inclusive towards men, is there a rational reason why we should be making these extra efforts? Or is it to satisfy the whims of writers like Nitasha Tiku who wouldn't know tech if it danced naked in front of her wearing a tea-cosy labelled Tech?" The fact that female-dominated industries are often perfectly comfortable being female-dominated industries is an indicator that it might be counterproductive to ignore male coders in a sexist effort to recruit more female ones.
> That's not even touching on your victim-complex of an argument about men coding. You must be pretty deep in that bubble.
What bubble? All I'm saying is that, as a low-income Asian person who learned to code, I am not a particularly privileged or rich person. Yet I have had zero initiatives helping me, or encouraging me to code. I have seen several people in a similar position. On the other hand, plenty of girls with high-income parents are babysat and helped by initiatives like Rails Girls et al. This is reality. Not sure why you think it is a complex.
Show me the equivalent of initiatives like "Rails Girls" or "Girls Who Code", or "Github's free private repos for women" for male teachers or nurses. A halfhearted list of platitudes from a Dean at ASU and an NYTimes article != actual effort. Look at the list of sponsors on this page. http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/ and show me something even remotely equivalent for nursing, or fashion.
> Even if there weren't, why does that matter? It has nothing to do with this industry's problems. We don't need every other industry to be fixing itself before we do.
I might turn that around and say, "Well, if other industries, specially female-dominated ones aren't rushing to be inclusive towards men, is there a rational reason why we should be making these extra efforts? Or is it to satisfy the whims of writers like Nitasha Tiku who wouldn't know tech if it danced naked in front of her wearing a tea-cosy labelled Tech?" The fact that female-dominated industries are often perfectly comfortable being female-dominated industries is an indicator that it might be counterproductive to ignore male coders in a sexist effort to recruit more female ones.
> That's not even touching on your victim-complex of an argument about men coding. You must be pretty deep in that bubble.
What bubble? All I'm saying is that, as a low-income Asian person who learned to code, I am not a particularly privileged or rich person. Yet I have had zero initiatives helping me, or encouraging me to code. I have seen several people in a similar position. On the other hand, plenty of girls with high-income parents are babysat and helped by initiatives like Rails Girls et al. This is reality. Not sure why you think it is a complex.
>Show me the equivalent of initiatives like "Rails Girls" or "Girls Who Code", or "Github's free private repos for women" for male teachers or nurses. A halfhearted list of platitudes from a Dean at ASU and an NYTimes article != actual effort. Look at the list of sponsors on this page. http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/ and show me something even remotely equivalent for nursing, or fashion.
Well googling for "programs to get men into nursing" returns these:
http://www.discovernursing.com/men-in-nursing#.UsGOpGRDsns
http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/men-nursing-school
Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine".
I'm pretty sure these aren't half-hearted platitudes.
Also consider: a profession that isn't tech may not have a giant list of tech heavyweights behind it. Again - different industries have different ways of doing things.
> All I'm saying is that, as a low-income Asian person who learned to code, I am not a particularly privileged or rich person. Yet I have had zero initiatives helping me, or encouraging me to code. I have seen several people in a similar position. On the other hand, plenty of girls with high-income parents are babysat and helped by initiatives like Rails Girls et al.
This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other".
Well googling for "programs to get men into nursing" returns these:
http://www.discovernursing.com/men-in-nursing#.UsGOpGRDsns
http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/men-nursing-school
Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine".
I'm pretty sure these aren't half-hearted platitudes.
Also consider: a profession that isn't tech may not have a giant list of tech heavyweights behind it. Again - different industries have different ways of doing things.
> All I'm saying is that, as a low-income Asian person who learned to code, I am not a particularly privileged or rich person. Yet I have had zero initiatives helping me, or encouraging me to code. I have seen several people in a similar position. On the other hand, plenty of girls with high-income parents are babysat and helped by initiatives like Rails Girls et al.
This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other".
> Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine"
You are either not serious, or seriously blinkered. What, two links that go to the same "American Assembly for Men in Nursing" association, a magazine for male nurses and a link to some history are equivalent to sponsorship from some of the biggest and most popular software employers (Google, Intel, Microsoft)? As I said, show me something visible like Sloan Kettering, or the Harvard Medical School sponsoring male nurses, or offering free courses to them.
> This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other".
No, but if there are two bugs (say A and B), and one of them (say B) is similar to another one that is marked INVALID or WONTFIX, your boss might complain that you're spending a ton of time on B. In this analogy, attracting more low-income men into tech would be the WONTFIX bug, since no one is rushing to fix it. Look at this story (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/#section5). Note that this is a girl who is also more likely to go into college and get a degree (60% of all college graduates are now women). A 15-year low-income male in the same situation? Tough luck, no "Boys who Code", or even "People Who Code" initiative for him.
You are either not serious, or seriously blinkered. What, two links that go to the same "American Assembly for Men in Nursing" association, a magazine for male nurses and a link to some history are equivalent to sponsorship from some of the biggest and most popular software employers (Google, Intel, Microsoft)? As I said, show me something visible like Sloan Kettering, or the Harvard Medical School sponsoring male nurses, or offering free courses to them.
> This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other".
No, but if there are two bugs (say A and B), and one of them (say B) is similar to another one that is marked INVALID or WONTFIX, your boss might complain that you're spending a ton of time on B. In this analogy, attracting more low-income men into tech would be the WONTFIX bug, since no one is rushing to fix it. Look at this story (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/#section5). Note that this is a girl who is also more likely to go into college and get a degree (60% of all college graduates are now women). A 15-year low-income male in the same situation? Tough luck, no "Boys who Code", or even "People Who Code" initiative for him.
[deleted]
Are you joking? The fashion world has massively outreached to men in recent couple of decades. Axe and chest shaving and all that other metrosexual stuff.
And the lack of male teachers is a persistent concern in the education world, especially with respect to the need to provide male role models for kids of single moms.
And the lack of male teachers is a persistent concern in the education world, especially with respect to the need to provide male role models for kids of single moms.
> The fashion world has massively outreached to men in recent couple of decades. Axe and chest shaving and all that other metrosexual stuff.
I mean men working in fashion, not being marketed to. And Axe is not fashion, thank you very much.
> And the lack of male teachers is a persistent concern in the education world...
Show me the equivalent of "Rails Girls" or "Girls Who Code" for male teachers or fashion designers. For example, the list of sponsors on this page (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/).
I mean men working in fashion, not being marketed to. And Axe is not fashion, thank you very much.
> And the lack of male teachers is a persistent concern in the education world...
Show me the equivalent of "Rails Girls" or "Girls Who Code" for male teachers or fashion designers. For example, the list of sponsors on this page (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/).
As well as girlswhocode there are also many non-gender-specific organizations aimed at helping young people into computer science.
Instead of asking whether gender-specific orgs for young people exist in the fashion or teaching world, you should also be asking whether non-gender-specific orgs exist in those fields as well.
The possible lack of "Young Male Teachers" organizations doesn't make much of a point if there's also a lack of "Young Teachers" organizations.
Instead of asking whether gender-specific orgs for young people exist in the fashion or teaching world, you should also be asking whether non-gender-specific orgs exist in those fields as well.
The possible lack of "Young Male Teachers" organizations doesn't make much of a point if there's also a lack of "Young Teachers" organizations.
> metrosexual stuff.
That's a funny word, to me. Apparently grooming has a lot to do with sexual orientation.
That's a funny word, to me. Apparently grooming has a lot to do with sexual orientation.
"And the lack of male teachers is a persistent concern in the education world, especially with respect to the need to provide male role models for kids of single moms."
Not by the people doing the hiring since they grow more risk adverse every year and being male is a risk. Daycares are more open about it, but elementary schools aren't far behind.
Once again, if you don't want your female child's diapers changed by a male teacher - you are part of the problem.
Not by the people doing the hiring since they grow more risk adverse every year and being male is a risk. Daycares are more open about it, but elementary schools aren't far behind.
Once again, if you don't want your female child's diapers changed by a male teacher - you are part of the problem.
The fashion world has massively outreached to men in recent couple of decades. Axe and chest shaving and all that other metrosexual stuff.
The fashion world sees men as a target market. Doesn't mean that they are doing outreach or trying to improve the pipeline of men in to the industry.
The fashion world sees men as a target market. Doesn't mean that they are doing outreach or trying to improve the pipeline of men in to the industry.
I have a funny story. When I was about 14, I was told I was going to be in a newspaper story about students participating in mathematics competitions (national versions of the IMO). In the end, they cancelled the interview and did the story on two White guys of the same age who had placed much lower in the competitions. I guess its a consolation that nowadays both White and Asian males would make an equally bad story.
Men do better than women at the Math SAT[1]. The male/female ratio is especially high in the higher Math percentiles, where you would expect your best engineers to come from. The polite way to explain this is some kind of "expectations effect", which is possible, but females do dominate at all other aspects of education. We cannot rule out simple innate ability, combined with higher male interest in abstract things.
[1] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
[1] http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-hug...
Men score better than women on standardized tests in math in some countries, while in other countries women score better (http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~kelly/gap_sept09.pdf).
It's almost as if the culture you are surrounded by somehow affects you. In fact the countries with more gender equality that encourage women in the sciences have higher test scores for women!
It's almost as if the culture you are surrounded by somehow affects you. In fact the countries with more gender equality that encourage women in the sciences have higher test scores for women!
Thanks for that link. After looking through Appendix Table 2 (page 25), it's pretty obvious that the only big outlier is the gap in Israeli high-school students.
Here's a link to the (gated) paper with the data: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272708...
From the abstract:
Here's a link to the (gated) paper with the data: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272708...
From the abstract:
This paper tests for the existence of gender stereotyping and
discrimination by public high-school teachers in Israel.
Using data on test results in several subjects in the humanities
and sciences, I found, contrary to expectations, that male
students face discrimination in each subject. These biases
widen the female–male achievement difference because girls
outperform boys in all subjects, except English, and at all levels of
the curriculum. The bias is evident in all segments of the ability and
performance distribution and is robust to various individual controls.
Sure, if "gender equality" is a euphemism for school grades being biased towards girls:
“If, as the data suggest, young girls display a more developed ‘attitude toward learning’ and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores, the seeds of a gender gap in educational attainment may be sown at an early age, because teachers‘ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school graduation and college admission prospects.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/why-girls-get-better-grade...
“If, as the data suggest, young girls display a more developed ‘attitude toward learning’ and teachers (consciously or subconsciously) reward these attitudes by giving girls higher marks than warranted by their test scores, the seeds of a gender gap in educational attainment may be sown at an early age, because teachers‘ grades strongly influence grade-level placement, high-school graduation and college admission prospects.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annanorth/why-girls-get-better-grade...
Wow, I never knew that the male-female Math gap was so robust. Look at the tables in the last three pages you linked. Except for Israel, nearly every country has a male-biased Math score gap on standardized tests.
It's called progressive-splaining [1]:
A condescending, inaccurate explanation delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course they are right, because the are the progressive in this conversation
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain
A condescending, inaccurate explanation delivered with rock solid confidence of rightness and that slimy certainty that of course they are right, because the are the progressive in this conversation
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain
> where you would expect your best engineers to come from.
I frequently see this assertion but I never see it sourced. Most programming use nothing more than simple math or just re-implementation of known algorithms (and we know how it turned out for Telegram to invent their own), why would you need hardcore math skills then?
If you said "above average", that would have been understandable, but then there isn't much data to support that point of view since as point out, the effect is especially important in the higher percentiles.
I frequently see this assertion but I never see it sourced. Most programming use nothing more than simple math or just re-implementation of known algorithms (and we know how it turned out for Telegram to invent their own), why would you need hardcore math skills then?
If you said "above average", that would have been understandable, but then there isn't much data to support that point of view since as point out, the effect is especially important in the higher percentiles.
Math and programming both require a facility in thinking abstractly, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between math ability and programming ability.
Startups try to keep a "high bar", only hiring people with sterling academic credentials or proven work in the field.
So I would expect the gender ratio to be less equal at startups that draw from the far right-hand side of the graph, and more equal at big firms that are willing to hire from the middle.
So I would expect the gender ratio to be less equal at startups that draw from the far right-hand side of the graph, and more equal at big firms that are willing to hire from the middle.
> Startups try to keep a "high bar", only hiring people with sterling academic credentials or proven work in the field.
Your "high bar" is everyone else's "they're like us."
Your "high bar" is everyone else's "they're like us."
http://www.lscp.net/persons/ramus/fr/GDP1/papers/spencer99.p...
“Characterizing the test as insensitive to gender differences was enough to totally eliminate women’s underperformance in this experiment. Yet when the same test was characterized as sensitive to gender differences, women significantly underperformed in relation to equally qualified men.”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2012.68...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487665
“Characterizing the test as insensitive to gender differences was enough to totally eliminate women’s underperformance in this experiment. Yet when the same test was characterized as sensitive to gender differences, women significantly underperformed in relation to equally qualified men.”
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2012.68...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19487665
Some social scientists are skeptical of the validity of stereotype threat. John List, in a paper coauthored with Steven Levitt at the University of Chicago, was unable to reproduce it[1]. Some scholars suspect publication bias[2]. Also see another failure to reproduce by the Educational Testing Service[3].
[1] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/john-list-on-virtual-none...
[2] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/stereotype-threat-scienti...
[3] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/high-stakes-stereotype-th...
[1] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/10/john-list-on-virtual-none...
[2] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/01/stereotype-threat-scienti...
[3] http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/high-stakes-stereotype-th...
Men do better than women at the Math SAT[1]
I just want to add that this has to do with culture, and, again, what we were exposed to and influenced to have an interest in from childhood.
In high school I can remember the top Science student were all women and they racked more awards than men.
I just want to add that this has to do with culture, and, again, what we were exposed to and influenced to have an interest in from childhood.
In high school I can remember the top Science student were all women and they racked more awards than men.
hahah, you recall that the top science students you knew were women? How convincing!
I have analyzed the records of the World Cubing Association, and there is 1 woman in the top 100 ranked [1].
I have analyzed the ratings of the American Scrabble Association, and there are 6 women in the top 100 ranked [2].
It is well known that there is only 1 woman in the top 100 ranked chess players (FIDE).
I have analyzed the ratings of the European Go Federation, and there are 0 women in the top 100 ranked [3].
But no, I guess I must defer to your remembered impressions.
[1] http://rcm-papers.info/gender-and-speedcubing.html
[2] http://rcm-papers.info/gender-and-scrabble.html
[3] Forthcoming
I have analyzed the records of the World Cubing Association, and there is 1 woman in the top 100 ranked [1].
I have analyzed the ratings of the American Scrabble Association, and there are 6 women in the top 100 ranked [2].
It is well known that there is only 1 woman in the top 100 ranked chess players (FIDE).
I have analyzed the ratings of the European Go Federation, and there are 0 women in the top 100 ranked [3].
But no, I guess I must defer to your remembered impressions.
[1] http://rcm-papers.info/gender-and-speedcubing.html
[2] http://rcm-papers.info/gender-and-scrabble.html
[3] Forthcoming
And this couldn't be in part because women have less free time across the board, about five hours less?[1]
Hard to get to tournament quality if you don't get as much time to practice.
[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/10/another-gend...
Hard to get to tournament quality if you don't get as much time to practice.
[1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/10/another-gend...
Are you seriously saying that women without children at home having less free time is now somehow society's problem? You don't just "have less free time" automatically. It's probably because you choose to do more housework, which is exactly what the study says ("they spend about six hours more than men doing household work").
Don't want to do it? Cool, practise for a tournament all the time, don't do more housework, and take the risks that come with that. There are tons of lonely male nerds who have untidy houses and excellent tournament records. You are very welcome to join their ranks. In fact they would probably be glad to have more female participation. I on the other hand will err on the side of a more tidy house, and no medals.
Don't want to do it? Cool, practise for a tournament all the time, don't do more housework, and take the risks that come with that. There are tons of lonely male nerds who have untidy houses and excellent tournament records. You are very welcome to join their ranks. In fact they would probably be glad to have more female participation. I on the other hand will err on the side of a more tidy house, and no medals.
Uh, no.
The OP was trying to imply that women are naturally worse at the competitions cited, and I pointed out that women in the age demographic that wins those competitions (usually men 20-50) have less free time than the men.
And ... many women don't "want" to do more housework/chores, but feel they have to do it, because if their house is dirty or their kids don't have clean clothes/snacks for the soccer game, etc., it's considered the mom's fault. The dad often gets a free pass. The social pressure makes it a LOT less than a "choice". The social pressure = society's problem. Think about that the next time you see an ad where a woman is shamed because X in her house is less than sparkling, or one where a man is given a free pass to be incompetent at a household chore.
The average woman will catch much more flak for having a dirty house than she will be praised for playing competitive X, even if she's very very very good. And if she's less than very very very good? She's "neglectful" or "selfish."
If I said a guy "chooses" to wear pants instead of a skirt, is it fair to leave out the fact that a guy in skirt will probably face some harassment? There are free choices and not-so-free choices.
And ... please, I don't want to hear "But yardwork!" The grass gets mown 1x/week. The garbage cans go out 1x/week. The dishes, laundry, general tidying? For anything more than 2 people it's every day.
I'm lucky because my spouse does 80% of the housework, because I have a demanding startup job (uh, with time to read HN).
The OP was trying to imply that women are naturally worse at the competitions cited, and I pointed out that women in the age demographic that wins those competitions (usually men 20-50) have less free time than the men.
And ... many women don't "want" to do more housework/chores, but feel they have to do it, because if their house is dirty or their kids don't have clean clothes/snacks for the soccer game, etc., it's considered the mom's fault. The dad often gets a free pass. The social pressure makes it a LOT less than a "choice". The social pressure = society's problem. Think about that the next time you see an ad where a woman is shamed because X in her house is less than sparkling, or one where a man is given a free pass to be incompetent at a household chore.
The average woman will catch much more flak for having a dirty house than she will be praised for playing competitive X, even if she's very very very good. And if she's less than very very very good? She's "neglectful" or "selfish."
If I said a guy "chooses" to wear pants instead of a skirt, is it fair to leave out the fact that a guy in skirt will probably face some harassment? There are free choices and not-so-free choices.
And ... please, I don't want to hear "But yardwork!" The grass gets mown 1x/week. The garbage cans go out 1x/week. The dishes, laundry, general tidying? For anything more than 2 people it's every day.
I'm lucky because my spouse does 80% of the housework, because I have a demanding startup job (uh, with time to read HN).
Uh, yes.
The OP was correct in saying that men are better (he didn't say anything about naturally) at the competitions cited.
And...many men don't want to do chess, coding, or Go competitions, but feel they have to do it, because it is often way of getting any recognition from society, which usually reserves it for actors and football players. Women often get a free pass on account of their looks -- people are naturally nice to even an average-looking woman. An average looking man gets squat. This social pressure = society's problem. Think about that the next time you see an ad that portrays the average dad as an incompetent schlub. For instance, this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iymBRSUfz9U
The average man will be treated much worse at a supermarket, a coffee shop, or on the bus, even if he is very very very polite. And if he is less than handsome or wealthy? He's "not really my type", or "ugh, what a creep".
If a girl chooses to dress as a man for a year, it is a fact that she will come out of that experience seeing how harder it is for men. (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/apr/01/highereducation...)
And please, I don't ever want to hear about how you (or your spouse) can't do well at chess or programming because you are busy putting out the trash and doing the dishes in your house. I face the same problems regarding housework, and I am still expected by traditional society, even in the US, to be the breadwinner for my family (which is one of the many reasons I will probably never marry).
The OP was correct in saying that men are better (he didn't say anything about naturally) at the competitions cited.
And...many men don't want to do chess, coding, or Go competitions, but feel they have to do it, because it is often way of getting any recognition from society, which usually reserves it for actors and football players. Women often get a free pass on account of their looks -- people are naturally nice to even an average-looking woman. An average looking man gets squat. This social pressure = society's problem. Think about that the next time you see an ad that portrays the average dad as an incompetent schlub. For instance, this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iymBRSUfz9U
The average man will be treated much worse at a supermarket, a coffee shop, or on the bus, even if he is very very very polite. And if he is less than handsome or wealthy? He's "not really my type", or "ugh, what a creep".
If a girl chooses to dress as a man for a year, it is a fact that she will come out of that experience seeing how harder it is for men. (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/apr/01/highereducation...)
And please, I don't ever want to hear about how you (or your spouse) can't do well at chess or programming because you are busy putting out the trash and doing the dishes in your house. I face the same problems regarding housework, and I am still expected by traditional society, even in the US, to be the breadwinner for my family (which is one of the many reasons I will probably never marry).
I don't think you have been paying attention, or maybe you are hanging out in the wrong places. Have you read "Lean In"?
There are plenty of women out there who don't expect their husbands to be the main breadwinner. Go hang out with med students or lawyers. There are lots of women who would LOVE to be able to concentrate on their careers and have their spouse at home with the kids and making dinner. If "traditional society" is expecting you to do X, go find a "nontraditional society"!
Are you doing PUA techniques at bars as a way to meet women? Then yeah, you are competing on looks and wealth. Are you treating women like people and getting to know them as friends?
You might want to look into CBT, because your comments sound like you have some negative thought patterns that you might want to combat. Thinking that everyone is going to treat you rudely or consider you a creep is a great way to act in defensive ways that ... make people treat you rudely and consider you a creep. :-(
There are plenty of women out there who don't expect their husbands to be the main breadwinner. Go hang out with med students or lawyers. There are lots of women who would LOVE to be able to concentrate on their careers and have their spouse at home with the kids and making dinner. If "traditional society" is expecting you to do X, go find a "nontraditional society"!
Are you doing PUA techniques at bars as a way to meet women? Then yeah, you are competing on looks and wealth. Are you treating women like people and getting to know them as friends?
You might want to look into CBT, because your comments sound like you have some negative thought patterns that you might want to combat. Thinking that everyone is going to treat you rudely or consider you a creep is a great way to act in defensive ways that ... make people treat you rudely and consider you a creep. :-(
The delta in "Leisure and sports" activities is not caused by the fact that women have "less free time across the board". It is caused by the fact that women choose to engage in other activities.
Women spend 6.61 hours on work + household work + caring for others + shopping, men spend 6.41 hours on it. The delta is 1.4 hours/week, not 5 hours/week.
Women sleep 1.82 hours/week more than men, spend 1.61 hours/week more than men on grooming, and 0.85 hours/week more than men on religious/civic activities. A woman who wanted to become a scrabble champion could easily choose not to do her nails, to wake up earlier and to skip church.
http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2012.pdf
Women spend 6.61 hours on work + household work + caring for others + shopping, men spend 6.41 hours on it. The delta is 1.4 hours/week, not 5 hours/week.
Women sleep 1.82 hours/week more than men, spend 1.61 hours/week more than men on grooming, and 0.85 hours/week more than men on religious/civic activities. A woman who wanted to become a scrabble champion could easily choose not to do her nails, to wake up earlier and to skip church.
http://www.bls.gov/tus/tables/a1_2012.pdf
I'll take my comment back until I can find proof (which I shall find :)).
[deleted]
Yet I rarely hear about the cultural problem of not having enough males in nursing, or how we can encourage more male nurses.... Why is that?
Because you're not reading the discussions in the nursing industry. It's a recognised problem there and they do want more men involved.
The technical world also has a much larger online presence, unsurprisingly.
Same goes for elementary school teachers.
Same goes for elementary school teachers.
Because you're not reading the discussions in the nursing industry. It's a recognised problem there and they do want more men involved.
The technical world also has a much larger online presence, unsurprisingly.
Same goes for elementary school teachers.
Same goes for elementary school teachers.
>they do want more men involved.
Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?
Why is it so important in modern society that every area has an even split of men and women and the right quota of every ethnicity?
I personally don't think an even split in every area is the right way to go. But the percentage of men in nursing is in the single digits - far from 'an even split'. There are concrete benefits to having more male nurses - some patients respond better to being handled by a member of a given gender. Same thing with teachers for young children, in that more male teachers means having a broader, better range of role models. 'Matching the demographic proportions' is a stupid goal, but 'well-represented' isn't.
This is going to sound like an is-therefore-it-ought-to-be fallacious argument but it makes sense to me that there are more female nurses simply because women are better suited to the task and more importantly want to be nurses? I mean there are probably historical reasons for the low number of male nurses and other things to attribute the low ratio to but we didn't sit down one day and force females to be nurses.
Healthcare and educations has way bigger problems than some patients responding better to male nurses. There's a lot of what I consider grasping at straws when it comes to this sort of discussion. Let's start by talking about the curriculum and spending and stuff that has way more of an impact on our society.
Healthcare and educations has way bigger problems than some patients responding better to male nurses. There's a lot of what I consider grasping at straws when it comes to this sort of discussion. Let's start by talking about the curriculum and spending and stuff that has way more of an impact on our society.
[deleted]
1) Unless there is reason to believe that the skills involved in doing a good job are widely different between genders, it represents a waste of human talent.
2) Unless there is reason to believe that interest in the job is widely different between genders (and that this difference either causes no unhappiness/difference in social status, or is completely unavoidable) it represents a loss of potential happiness.
This isn't rocket science.
2) Unless there is reason to believe that interest in the job is widely different between genders (and that this difference either causes no unhappiness/difference in social status, or is completely unavoidable) it represents a loss of potential happiness.
This isn't rocket science.
Adding "This isn't rocket science" or equivalent at the end of a post doesn't make you right by the way, it does make you sound arrogant though. There are reasons to believe that skill and interest in genders vary, the premise of both of your arguments is weak, but I'll reply as though it was valid.
> 1) Unless there is reason to believe that the skills involved in doing a good job are widely different between genders, it represents a waste of human talent.
If either gender can be equally skilled at something it doesn't matter if one person is using their skill at nursing and another at coding, the split doesn't have to be the same. All women could do nursing all men could code, where's the waste of talent?
>2) Unless there is reason to believe that interest in the job is widely different between genders (and that this difference either causes no unhappiness/difference in social status, or is completely unavoidable) it represents a loss of potential happiness.
Essentially - "there are women who would be happy if they coded but they don't, so we should encourage more women to code". In our current society there is little pressure from anyone to avoid career paths that don't fit the gender role. You're pushing for equality when it is isn't needed because of "potential happiness" - hey there are men who would enjoy ballet dancing but we don't have enough men doing it so let's spread the word.
Sorry I don't buy any of this equal society crap, let people do what they want.
> 1) Unless there is reason to believe that the skills involved in doing a good job are widely different between genders, it represents a waste of human talent.
If either gender can be equally skilled at something it doesn't matter if one person is using their skill at nursing and another at coding, the split doesn't have to be the same. All women could do nursing all men could code, where's the waste of talent?
>2) Unless there is reason to believe that interest in the job is widely different between genders (and that this difference either causes no unhappiness/difference in social status, or is completely unavoidable) it represents a loss of potential happiness.
Essentially - "there are women who would be happy if they coded but they don't, so we should encourage more women to code". In our current society there is little pressure from anyone to avoid career paths that don't fit the gender role. You're pushing for equality when it is isn't needed because of "potential happiness" - hey there are men who would enjoy ballet dancing but we don't have enough men doing it so let's spread the word.
Sorry I don't buy any of this equal society crap, let people do what they want.
Say our model is that talent is a bell curve, with equal distribution among the genders, and that our (simplistic) goal is to maximize the talent available for a given profession. Then we expect 50% men, 50% women. Isn't that obvious?
> In our current society there is little pressure from anyone to avoid career paths that don't fit the gender role.
Tell that to a male nurse.
I guess I'm being arrogant, but you're being willfully blind. It may turn out that it just happens that men prefer some jobs. But given that the gender expectations that we have change over time (http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals-how-...), it deserves extra scrutiny, rather than the assumption that it is natural.
> In our current society there is little pressure from anyone to avoid career paths that don't fit the gender role.
Tell that to a male nurse.
I guess I'm being arrogant, but you're being willfully blind. It may turn out that it just happens that men prefer some jobs. But given that the gender expectations that we have change over time (http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2011/researcher-reveals-how-...), it deserves extra scrutiny, rather than the assumption that it is natural.
> I'm just going to throw this out here: only about 10% of nurses are male.
I think this is partly caused by the fact that men and women have a different natural tendency to enjoy nursing. (Honest question – is this belief politically incorrect?) If you completely filter out cultural effects, the tendency to incline to a specific profession will differ between genders, at least very slightly (that's just statistics). Of course, the very hard question is how big is this difference.
I think this is partly caused by the fact that men and women have a different natural tendency to enjoy nursing. (Honest question – is this belief politically incorrect?) If you completely filter out cultural effects, the tendency to incline to a specific profession will differ between genders, at least very slightly (that's just statistics). Of course, the very hard question is how big is this difference.
I'm not sure it's exactly politically incorrect -- lots of people probably believe it -- but I do think it's wrong. Similar to saying girls naturally prefer to play with baby dolls and wear dresses, when in reality every person they meet has been subtly (or not) pushing them that way their whole lives. "Oh, you're so pretty! Want to try this bow on?" Etc.
You may think it's wrong, but a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the former president of the American Psychology Association would disagree with you. There is a chapter in his book (http://www.amazon.com/What-You-Change-Cant-Self-Improvement/...) where he talks about gender identification as nature or nurture.
He argues, quite convincingly, that girls raised as boys still like dolls and boys raised as girls still like firetrucks and bulldozers.
I would recommend the book.
He argues, quite convincingly, that girls raised as boys still like dolls and boys raised as girls still like firetrucks and bulldozers.
I would recommend the book.
I think that each gender has a different natural tendency to various professions but these tendencies are amplified by the culture.
To suggest that men are some how different to women is incredibly sexist, check your privilege.
Men are obviously biologically different than women in a large number of ways; the exact degree to which those biological differences affect behavior and attitudes is unclear, but we know that differences in, e.g., hormone levels within a gender have behavioral and attitude impacts, so its at least likely that there is some degree of such impact from that and other biological differences between genders.
If you define sexism broadly enough, that may be "sexist", but it doesn't stop it from being well supported by the facts we know about the world.
If you define sexism broadly enough, that may be "sexist", but it doesn't stop it from being well supported by the facts we know about the world.
Well, men and women are different. As hopefullly everyone knows, they have different bodies, including the brain (there are obvious psychological and behavioral differences).
Just to be sure (one can never know nowdays) – that's sarcasm right?
If it isnt clear then there is a problem.
You'd be surprised how many incredibly weird posts are on HN that are actually not sarcastic.
[deleted]
I... thought coding was cool.
No one seems to talk about where these girls are being pulled from, as if labor shifts don't have two sides. What often seems to happen in initiatives like this is that all the sectors which decide they need higher female participation end up fighting over the same pool of "high-achieving" (high IQ, upper class, family connections) individuals. "We need to shift women from MBA programs into comp sci master's programs" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Keep in mind, too, that female unemployment is lower than male unemployment. Your average female in the labor force has more options than your average male.
> Keep in mind, too, that female unemployment is lower than male unemployment. Your average female in the labor force has more options than your average male.
A society which views it as more acceptable for women to opt-out of the labor force may distort this: when employment becomes less scarce, women may be more likely to opt-out of the labor force -- since unemployment measures (actively looking for work) / (employed + actively looking for work), people dropping out of the active labor force when out of work shows up as lower unemployment, but it doesn't mean "more options" for those in the labor force.
A society which views it as more acceptable for women to opt-out of the labor force may distort this: when employment becomes less scarce, women may be more likely to opt-out of the labor force -- since unemployment measures (actively looking for work) / (employed + actively looking for work), people dropping out of the active labor force when out of work shows up as lower unemployment, but it doesn't mean "more options" for those in the labor force.
when employment becomes less scarce, women may be more likely to opt-out of the labor force
We've been in that situation for 5 years in the US. What you're describing did not happen—declines in labor participation among men still exceed women by a significant amount.
One explanation I've heard is that since women earn less, but do "the same" work, it's cheaper to keep them on vs. men. I have no idea if that's correct or not, or if it is, explains the difference.
We've been in that situation for 5 years in the US. What you're describing did not happen—declines in labor participation among men still exceed women by a significant amount.
One explanation I've heard is that since women earn less, but do "the same" work, it's cheaper to keep them on vs. men. I have no idea if that's correct or not, or if it is, explains the difference.
"eh" The rates looked to be tracking pretty closely until the housing bubble burst:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/womens-unemploy...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/womens-unemploy...
If you want to get girls coding, get Windows OSes out of schools. They kill interest in computers before you have time to get interested in them.
What a weird comment. How would this be worse for girls than for boys?
> What a weird comment. How would this be worse for girls than for boys?
I didn't say it was worse. I simply posted it because nobody else has mentioned it. Teaching computing these days is seen as a joke, much like learning to code.
I didn't say it was worse. I simply posted it because nobody else has mentioned it. Teaching computing these days is seen as a joke, much like learning to code.
One thing that came out of the discussion in the last article on this topic, was the people who support this kind of affirmative action were very interested in hearing from HN posters who opposed it (especially men), so they could understand what our reasons were, and a respectful discussion could be had. In response to this request, here is my opinion on the matter.
In fact, I think there is truth to what both sides say. On the pro AA side, it is true that women probably feel unwelcome in the tech industry. Even when men don't do anything consciously to exclude women, programming culture revolves around certain attitudes and mindsets that are associated with young men in our culture. E.g. being interested in science fiction, being obsessive about one's work and hobbies, . None of these things are strictly related to programming, and an excessive focus on them makes it harder for women (and minorities) to enter the field. The fact that male programmers are attracted to the minority of female programmers doesn't help with this feeling of unwelcomeness, in fact it adds to the awkwardness (although I think that most of this is completely innocent and could not be called harassment, and actual harassment is rarer in our industry than others).
On the anti-AA side, I think that women, due to reverse-discrimination and old fashion chivalry, are objectively advantaged in every field. Furthermore, some things that would seem to advantage men like long hours, stressful work, and being judged on results, are not bad or discriminatory in themselves. But they will tend to favor men over women because our society provides greater incentives for men to obtain money and positions of power. When people talk about work life balance, what they really mean is that the industry should stop providing people with an opportunity to advance their career by putting in extra time and effort.
Thank you for hearing my opinions on the issue, and I hope more people who oppose AA will answer the call to explain their viewpoints.
In fact, I think there is truth to what both sides say. On the pro AA side, it is true that women probably feel unwelcome in the tech industry. Even when men don't do anything consciously to exclude women, programming culture revolves around certain attitudes and mindsets that are associated with young men in our culture. E.g. being interested in science fiction, being obsessive about one's work and hobbies, . None of these things are strictly related to programming, and an excessive focus on them makes it harder for women (and minorities) to enter the field. The fact that male programmers are attracted to the minority of female programmers doesn't help with this feeling of unwelcomeness, in fact it adds to the awkwardness (although I think that most of this is completely innocent and could not be called harassment, and actual harassment is rarer in our industry than others).
On the anti-AA side, I think that women, due to reverse-discrimination and old fashion chivalry, are objectively advantaged in every field. Furthermore, some things that would seem to advantage men like long hours, stressful work, and being judged on results, are not bad or discriminatory in themselves. But they will tend to favor men over women because our society provides greater incentives for men to obtain money and positions of power. When people talk about work life balance, what they really mean is that the industry should stop providing people with an opportunity to advance their career by putting in extra time and effort.
Thank you for hearing my opinions on the issue, and I hope more people who oppose AA will answer the call to explain their viewpoints.
And..? I would be much more interested if the title was "Cats Who Code".
A minor scandal erupted when was noted that there were few women in the co-ed national league, and a huge about of effort was made to recruit female players. Every family wanted the prestige, fame, and fortune that came with having a daughter in the league. Male players wanted more females playing so it didn't feel like a damn sausagefest all the time, and to help with dating (for some odd reason, most male bounceyball players were surprisingly unattractive).
Eventually it was suggested that the problem lay upstream, so major efforts were made to recruit teenage girls for the middle and high school leagues, which were also coed.
However, for some reason this attempt also failed. Finally, an anonymous poster on the Internet noted that, as a broad generalization, taller bounceyball players were more suited to the game, scoring more points. Perhaps a gender difference in height was to blame, discouraging female players and hurting them in the draft. The poster tracked down these differences in height to a disparity in average male and female birth weights, and suggested that perhaps a cocktail of experimental prenatal hormones (primarily testosterone), continued until age 15, would do the trick.
The anonymous poster was promptly downvoted and the discussion turned to topics of sexism, discrimination, and cultural bias in the bounceyball leagues. Various horror stories were recounted by female bounceyball players and a new round of self-flagellation began among those in the industry.