Stop telling women they just need to know how to code(finance.fortune.cnn.com)
finance.fortune.cnn.com
Stop telling women they just need to know how to code
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/03/stop-telling-women-code/
89 comments
I don't think it's incoherent. The argument about women being free to make a choice about having children does not preclude a partner from having a part in that choice. It is about freedom from societal pressures, not freedom from a partner. The fourth point then says that if the couple chooses to have a child, it should be considere normal by society that the partner contributes equally to the burden of having a child.
She's not advocating for division of parental responsibilities to be a private matter between parents and child, she's advocating for non-mothers to support mothers:
...supportive social and economic practices for those who do chose to have children...need to be reinforced by some body such as companies or governments.
...supportive social and economic practices for those who do chose to have children...need to be reinforced by some body such as companies or governments.
As we are usually all children, workers, and aging family members at some point, but the responsibility of childbirth, child-rearing, and elder care are, due to biology and historical discrimination, largely and/or completely borne by a subset of half of the population, the justification seems pretty obvious on its face.
Just because it includes collective reasoning and is not libertarian doesn't make it self-contradicting.
Just because it includes collective reasoning and is not libertarian doesn't make it self-contradicting.
The justification is not obvious to me. Could you explain in careful detail?
Please start by listing any necessary moral premises. For example, collective guilt, individual freedom, and how to determine which collectives these principles apply to (assuming of course that these principles are what underlies your position). In the US there are 2^{300 million} possible collectives, but you seem to have it narrowed down to 1. How?
I didn't claim that it was self contradicting because it was non-libertarian. I claimed that it seemed contradictory without further explanation because early on she appeals to individualism (when it benefits women making her particular life choices) but later on appeals to collective responsibility (when it benefits women making her particular life choices).
There might be some consistent underlying principle and it might not be contradictory. I just can't figure out what it is, which is why I asked the question.
Please start by listing any necessary moral premises. For example, collective guilt, individual freedom, and how to determine which collectives these principles apply to (assuming of course that these principles are what underlies your position). In the US there are 2^{300 million} possible collectives, but you seem to have it narrowed down to 1. How?
I didn't claim that it was self contradicting because it was non-libertarian. I claimed that it seemed contradictory without further explanation because early on she appeals to individualism (when it benefits women making her particular life choices) but later on appeals to collective responsibility (when it benefits women making her particular life choices).
There might be some consistent underlying principle and it might not be contradictory. I just can't figure out what it is, which is why I asked the question.
[deleted]
Subsidies to mothers are already massive.
For example: Free k-12 school. That's a $3-10k/year subsidy right there (taxpayers spend $11,073 on this $3k-$10k subsidy - what a deal!).
Another example: Many states require paid maternity leave (is this Federal now?). That's a pretty massive subsidy!
Another example: We do have super high rates of child support in the Anglosphere, you know. Look to France & others for more sane approaches to this subject and more sane rates. (France & sane? I'm serious!).
Where does this all end? What level of subsidization is sufficient?
I bet someone even responds to me with a 'for the children' comment. You watch.
For example: Free k-12 school. That's a $3-10k/year subsidy right there (taxpayers spend $11,073 on this $3k-$10k subsidy - what a deal!).
Another example: Many states require paid maternity leave (is this Federal now?). That's a pretty massive subsidy!
Another example: We do have super high rates of child support in the Anglosphere, you know. Look to France & others for more sane approaches to this subject and more sane rates. (France & sane? I'm serious!).
Where does this all end? What level of subsidization is sufficient?
I bet someone even responds to me with a 'for the children' comment. You watch.
I don't think you know anything about paid maternity leave in this country as compared to the rest of the world: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/maternity-leave-pai...
This is one of the most absurd comments I've ever read.
How is free K-12 a subsidy to mothers? If anything, public education is a huge subsidy to employers.
Also, child support mandates in the U.S. are not high and in many cases don't come close to covering half the costs of child rearing.
Say the father makes $45,000/year (far above the national median individual income). His net income is Illinois is around $2,700 per month. His child support obligation is $540/month. That's $6,500 per year, or about half the annual average cost of raising a child in the urban midwest according to this calculator: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/?iid=EL.
That level is already a huge subsidy from the mother to the father. The mother and father pay half the expenses of raising the child, but on top of that the mother takes on all of the domestic work necessary to raise the kid, and also shoulders the full career hit that comes from having childcare responsibilities. As someone who has tried to outsource a lot of domestic childcare duties, let me say that the market value of the domestic labor provided solely by the mother in this example far outweighs the total income of the median male.
How is free K-12 a subsidy to mothers? If anything, public education is a huge subsidy to employers.
Also, child support mandates in the U.S. are not high and in many cases don't come close to covering half the costs of child rearing.
Say the father makes $45,000/year (far above the national median individual income). His net income is Illinois is around $2,700 per month. His child support obligation is $540/month. That's $6,500 per year, or about half the annual average cost of raising a child in the urban midwest according to this calculator: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/pf/cost-of-children/?iid=EL.
That level is already a huge subsidy from the mother to the father. The mother and father pay half the expenses of raising the child, but on top of that the mother takes on all of the domestic work necessary to raise the kid, and also shoulders the full career hit that comes from having childcare responsibilities. As someone who has tried to outsource a lot of domestic childcare duties, let me say that the market value of the domestic labor provided solely by the mother in this example far outweighs the total income of the median male.
Reality check: Outside of the Anglosphere, child support often tops out around a few hundred dollars/month. The average support level in France is ~$160/mo.
How do those poor French mothers survive?
>If anything, public education is a huge subsidy to employers.
If left to their own devices, I doubt employers would choose to spend $11k/yr/pupil on fingerpainting and remedial math.
How do those poor French mothers survive?
>If anything, public education is a huge subsidy to employers.
If left to their own devices, I doubt employers would choose to spend $11k/yr/pupil on fingerpainting and remedial math.
Nobody has ever given a shit about what the French think. A child is the product of a father and a mother. When parents don't stay together, the only logical way to divide the burden of raising a child is to allocate 50% of the monetary expenses and 50% of the labor to each parent. Anything that allocates less than this to fathers is a huge subsidy from women to men.
As for employers, finger-painting is pre-K, which isn't universally free in the states. Starting in Kindergarten, education starts with basic literacy. The production of a literate and numerate workforce is a huge subsidy to employers. The crack about remedial math actually undermines your position: its remedial math that creates the huge population of people who have enough basic numeracy to operate a cash register, thus driving the cost of cashiers down to almost nothing. Also, the high supply of literate and numerate labor drives down the wages of each marginal employee, allowing employers to capture a higher percentage of the value generated by the employee. If an employer makes $25 per hour off of someone he pays $10, and public education makes that person employable, then right there the employer benefits mord from education than the employee. Finally, remember that in the states education is funded by property taxes, which are largely paid for by families and not businesses. So families pay most of that $11k per year, not businesses.
And leaving aside the benefit to employers, why do you call K12 a subsidy to mothers, rather than both fathers and mothers equally?
As for employers, finger-painting is pre-K, which isn't universally free in the states. Starting in Kindergarten, education starts with basic literacy. The production of a literate and numerate workforce is a huge subsidy to employers. The crack about remedial math actually undermines your position: its remedial math that creates the huge population of people who have enough basic numeracy to operate a cash register, thus driving the cost of cashiers down to almost nothing. Also, the high supply of literate and numerate labor drives down the wages of each marginal employee, allowing employers to capture a higher percentage of the value generated by the employee. If an employer makes $25 per hour off of someone he pays $10, and public education makes that person employable, then right there the employer benefits mord from education than the employee. Finally, remember that in the states education is funded by property taxes, which are largely paid for by families and not businesses. So families pay most of that $11k per year, not businesses.
And leaving aside the benefit to employers, why do you call K12 a subsidy to mothers, rather than both fathers and mothers equally?
The crack was about it costing $11k/yr, not that remedial math is bad.
It's almost as if France has a robust social safety net. Child support just might be less. if we had things like:
1) inexpensive municipal day care
2) tax breaks for families employing in-home child care workers
3) universal free preschool beginning at age 3.
As to your last point I'm assuming you're implying that all women learn in K-12 is painting fingernails and remedial math, in which case, fuck you.
1) inexpensive municipal day care
2) tax breaks for families employing in-home child care workers
3) universal free preschool beginning at age 3.
As to your last point I'm assuming you're implying that all women learn in K-12 is painting fingernails and remedial math, in which case, fuck you.
You don't know what fingerpainting is :(
Re: Social safety net:
That's why child support stops after the child turns three? (that's a joke for those who don't know it continues to 18)
Re: Social safety net:
That's why child support stops after the child turns three? (that's a joke for those who don't know it continues to 18)
Oh duh, finger painting, gotcha, my mistake. Why do you say remedial math though?
Why would child support stop at 3 just because there's free preschool? You still have to provide all the other necessities of life like, you know, food and clothing.
Why would child support stop at 3 just because there's free preschool? You still have to provide all the other necessities of life like, you know, food and clothing.
If philosophy teaches you that ideas need to fit in one of binary opposite buckets, that sounds like an argument for not studying it.
Studying philosophy teaches that questions like this need to be answered (or at least acknowledged) rather than ignored.
> I do hope it's something more interesting than simply "the universe should make my chosen lifestyle easier!"
That's all it is, as long as that lifestyle is staying home and having kids. Otherwise you're a selfish bitch and looked down upon.
That's all it is, as long as that lifestyle is staying home and having kids. Otherwise you're a selfish bitch and looked down upon.
My mom became a doctor in the late 60s, when there was still a good deal of real sexism towards women (she was the only woman doctor at the college) - she had her lab work sabotaged among other things. (Before becoming a doctor, she started majoring in computer science, of all things.)
So why did women start becoming doctors? Is it because we went out of our way to create special programs, incentives, interest, and reverse discrimination for them?
No.
Women became doctors because they wanted to, and now sexism is at a point where it is kind of pathetic to not become a doctor because you are afraid of any sexist reactions you might encounter. I'd say the same applies for computer science. Women will come into the discipline over time (especially since now there are more software engineers than there are farmers in the US), no need artificially manipulate the evolution of the job market.
So why did women start becoming doctors? Is it because we went out of our way to create special programs, incentives, interest, and reverse discrimination for them?
No.
Women became doctors because they wanted to, and now sexism is at a point where it is kind of pathetic to not become a doctor because you are afraid of any sexist reactions you might encounter. I'd say the same applies for computer science. Women will come into the discipline over time (especially since now there are more software engineers than there are farmers in the US), no need artificially manipulate the evolution of the job market.
That's actually not true. The medical profession went to great lengths to create special programs for women. Medical schools went to great lengths to equalize the number of men and women in their incoming classes. Medical schools were in fact some of the pioneers in affirmative action (the seminal Supreme Court Decision Regents of University of California v. Bakke involved a medical school).
My wife is a doctor and 65% of all medical students in her year were female. Soon another high paid status job will be dominated by women, because to suggest these programs promote a gender bias in the opposite is met with vitriol and hate from feminist groups and campaigners.
The United States graduates more males from medical school than females. This is something you can go look up; it will be the first hit for your query on Google. But don't let that get in the way of your rant about "feminists". Mens Rights Now!
Sorry I dont live in the United States, are you seriously suggesting that because I think its bad that more women are graduating in medicine (in my country) than men because of advocacy programs that somehow I am anti female and a "MRM". How is this a rant? You are very toxic.
True, but you'd have to personally interview each women to determine their motivations for entering medicine (causation can be attributed to many things, including the general decline of sexism). Personally, my mom, even though she had a somewhat tough time, is very anti-reverse discrimination (which probably rubbed off on me). She views reverse discrimination as treating women like they are too weak to succeed on their own. Equality is treating people as equals.
Let me explain by analogy:
Say you've got a ship. If you perturb the ship by tilting it slightly starboard or port, and then remove the perturbation, it will return to sitting upright. Most ships are designed to have a stable equilibrium along the axis of the keel. Simply removing any perturbation will return the ship to the upright equilibrium.
Now, say you perturb the ship by applying a deflection to the rudder, tending to turn the ship to a new heading. When you remove the perturbation, the ship will straighten itself out, and stop turning, but will not return to its original heading. While most ships are designed to self-equillibriate to traveling straight, each possible heading is itself a stable equilibrium.
The "equality is treating people as equals" viewpoint assumes that the world behaves like the first case. You remove the discriminatory force, and you can assume that society will return itself to an upright equilibrium. But that's just an assumption. The world could very well behave like the second case. Even if you remove the discriminatory force, you can still be headed in the wrong direction!
The experience of at least two professions suggests that the world behaves more like the second case. In the 1950's and 1960's, there was extreme discrimination against women in medicine and law. In the 1970's through 1990's, both medical schools and law schools took affirmative measures to increase enrollment of women. And it was a smashing success: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c....
The key takeaway, though, is that the affirmative action moved the society to a new stable equilibrium. Today, there is no real advantage to being a woman when applying to medical school or law school. But the enrollment is stable because the new situation is self-perpetuating.
Say you've got a ship. If you perturb the ship by tilting it slightly starboard or port, and then remove the perturbation, it will return to sitting upright. Most ships are designed to have a stable equilibrium along the axis of the keel. Simply removing any perturbation will return the ship to the upright equilibrium.
Now, say you perturb the ship by applying a deflection to the rudder, tending to turn the ship to a new heading. When you remove the perturbation, the ship will straighten itself out, and stop turning, but will not return to its original heading. While most ships are designed to self-equillibriate to traveling straight, each possible heading is itself a stable equilibrium.
The "equality is treating people as equals" viewpoint assumes that the world behaves like the first case. You remove the discriminatory force, and you can assume that society will return itself to an upright equilibrium. But that's just an assumption. The world could very well behave like the second case. Even if you remove the discriminatory force, you can still be headed in the wrong direction!
The experience of at least two professions suggests that the world behaves more like the second case. In the 1950's and 1960's, there was extreme discrimination against women in medicine and law. In the 1970's through 1990's, both medical schools and law schools took affirmative measures to increase enrollment of women. And it was a smashing success: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/hua_hsu/assets_c....
The key takeaway, though, is that the affirmative action moved the society to a new stable equilibrium. Today, there is no real advantage to being a woman when applying to medical school or law school. But the enrollment is stable because the new situation is self-perpetuating.
So basically rayiner pointed out that you had a fairly huge factual misunderstanding of the world. You're going to acknowledge that mistake but continue to cling to your viewpoint about the value of affirmative action anyways based solely on the feelings of your mother?
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
To clarify, I am saying "true" to the fact that colleges have plenty of reverse discrimination programs. I stand by my statement that these programs were not necessarily responsible for getting women into medicine. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can go ask any women why she got into medicine, and her response probably won't be "well, the colleges were giving awesome scholarships to women at the time." It will more likely be "I wanted to get into a field where I could help people" or some such thing. In fact, you will rarely find people who chose their profession based on how much sexism was present. Rather (odd as it is!) people tend to choose the profession they are interested in pursuing, or one that has a good salary.
no need artificially manipulate the evolution of the job market
Interesting point, though I consider things like "stop being sexist assholes" not to be an artificial manipulation of the evolution market but just basic civilized behavior which benefits men and women alike.
Interesting point, though I consider things like "stop being sexist assholes" not to be an artificial manipulation of the evolution market but just basic civilized behavior which benefits men and women alike.
I agree - there is no reason to be sexist. But the author's message is not just about sexism, it is about reverse discrimination.
It's one thing to fight against inequality. Its another to demand that the scales be tipped in your favor.
It's one thing to fight against inequality. Its another to demand that the scales be tipped in your favor.
Is opposing affirmative action programs, which have historically proven to be largely failures, being a "sexist asshole"? I'm looking at this from a purely economical perspective because I really do not care about what people do, and I do not see a good reason to try to manipulate the employment market instead of society's view on employment.
I can't speak for everyone but I personally don't consider having different opinions on affirmative action programs being a "sexist asshole".
If you really need examples of actions that do qualify as sexist assholery, let me know and I'll dig some up. They aren't exactly hard to find.
If you really need examples of actions that do qualify as sexist assholery, let me know and I'll dig some up. They aren't exactly hard to find.
Indeed. My grandmother (https://aas.org/obituaries/georgeanne-caughlan-1916-1994) became an astrophysics professor in 1964....
Reaching out and providing scholarships and generally giving a leg up is not how this gap will be closed.
It has never been about teaching women to code, except at the bare minimum "I can get a job at a giant company where I'll write 2000 lines of code in a year."
It's about right clicking with your mouse to see if there are any other options available. Googling for your answer before you ask someone else. Asking questions on stackoverflow. Hacking and reading at night to figure out something that may or may not be for work. Recompiling the source code to make it bend to your will.
There is a price to be paid, and it doesn't have to do with money. As was said thousands of years ago, "There is no royal road to Geometry." It is the same today. All these solutions that don't involve paying that price are destined to fail. College age is too late. Middle school may be the last opportunity for any real percentage of women to be affected. It's not about completing classes.
It has never been about teaching women to code, except at the bare minimum "I can get a job at a giant company where I'll write 2000 lines of code in a year."
It's about right clicking with your mouse to see if there are any other options available. Googling for your answer before you ask someone else. Asking questions on stackoverflow. Hacking and reading at night to figure out something that may or may not be for work. Recompiling the source code to make it bend to your will.
There is a price to be paid, and it doesn't have to do with money. As was said thousands of years ago, "There is no royal road to Geometry." It is the same today. All these solutions that don't involve paying that price are destined to fail. College age is too late. Middle school may be the last opportunity for any real percentage of women to be affected. It's not about completing classes.
I think that's hogwash. The things you suggested:
> It's about right clicking with your mouse to see if there are any other options available. Googling for your answer before you ask someone else. Asking questions on stackoverflow. Hacking and reading at night to figure out something that may or may not be for work. Recompiling the source code to make it bend to your will.
These are things people can be trained to do.
The real problem here is that software engineering is still in the dark ages. We overvalue people who have been "hacking since middle school" because we can't systematically articulate the skills a good programmer should have and how we can train people in those skills. But this is purely a function of the immaturity of the field. There is nothing magic about software development that requires it to be perpetually stuck in the dark ages of ad-hoc craft.
> It's about right clicking with your mouse to see if there are any other options available. Googling for your answer before you ask someone else. Asking questions on stackoverflow. Hacking and reading at night to figure out something that may or may not be for work. Recompiling the source code to make it bend to your will.
These are things people can be trained to do.
The real problem here is that software engineering is still in the dark ages. We overvalue people who have been "hacking since middle school" because we can't systematically articulate the skills a good programmer should have and how we can train people in those skills. But this is purely a function of the immaturity of the field. There is nothing magic about software development that requires it to be perpetually stuck in the dark ages of ad-hoc craft.
You can't train someone to be good at something they fundamentally don't want to do, and you can't train them to be passionate. I've been hacking since middle school, and I'm a terrible programmer, even after a couple dozen programming classes ranging from Visual Basic to C++. Anyone would be able to see this within five minutes of talking to me. Fortunately, programming isn't what I do for a living (at least not today). I'm much more interested in breaking things than building things.
The point is, if you want to understand how computers work, you'll put in the time and effort and experimentation that's required to learn that. And you'll be better for the experience. If you aren't comfortable experimenting with your computer, you won't have the experience of doing something really cool with it. You won't have the experience needed to understand at an innate level what is going on. I couldn't explain half of what I know about computers. It's just simple familiarity. It can't easily be taught except through trial and error and experience.
Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish, or give a man a fishing pole and let the man figure out how to fish on his own. Which one embodies the hacker spirit more?
The point is, if you want to understand how computers work, you'll put in the time and effort and experimentation that's required to learn that. And you'll be better for the experience. If you aren't comfortable experimenting with your computer, you won't have the experience of doing something really cool with it. You won't have the experience needed to understand at an innate level what is going on. I couldn't explain half of what I know about computers. It's just simple familiarity. It can't easily be taught except through trial and error and experience.
Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish, or give a man a fishing pole and let the man figure out how to fish on his own. Which one embodies the hacker spirit more?
I agree 100% that you can't teach passion - that has to come from within. However, we certainly can do awfully better at encouraging that passion when it emerges rather than dutifully stuffing it back in the bottle and turning a promising college career right back into the pursuit of an MRS(tm) degree.
And if that takes a degree of well-meaning but mostly awkward affirmative action until the majority of brogrammers have either retired or drank/snorted/driven themselves to destruction, that's just the price of changing the status quo IMO.
I used to think otherwise, and all of these heavy-handed efforts to pull women into Computer Science once made me roll my eyes at their ineffectiveness, but all I had to do was listen to how a lot of my younger co-workers still judge women. Same $h!+ new decade alas...
And if that takes a degree of well-meaning but mostly awkward affirmative action until the majority of brogrammers have either retired or drank/snorted/driven themselves to destruction, that's just the price of changing the status quo IMO.
I used to think otherwise, and all of these heavy-handed efforts to pull women into Computer Science once made me roll my eyes at their ineffectiveness, but all I had to do was listen to how a lot of my younger co-workers still judge women. Same $h!+ new decade alas...
You're making a basic logical mistake, which is that the fact that someone didn't hack in middle school means that they wouldn't enjoy being a programmer. That's a logical hole that let's a lot of sexism through. It enshrines a status quo where we consider it acceptable to have dramatically fewer women in the profession simply because of gendered socialization at earlier stages of education.
I never stated that, or even implied it. I'm not the original person you were talking to though. I actually stated that just because you do something in middle school doesn't mean you'll be good at it later on (I'm not a good programmer, remember?).
I'm just saying you're missing the point. The point is, passion can't be taught, only encouraged. People hacking since middle school are probably passionate about it. That doesn't make them better than someone who became passionate in college, minus the decade head-start. It's not about teaching people to become programmers, it's about getting people interested in experimenting and learning on their own.
I'm just saying you're missing the point. The point is, passion can't be taught, only encouraged. People hacking since middle school are probably passionate about it. That doesn't make them better than someone who became passionate in college, minus the decade head-start. It's not about teaching people to become programmers, it's about getting people interested in experimenting and learning on their own.
We overvalue people who have been "hacking since middle school" because we can't systematically articulate the skills a good programmer should have and how we can train people in those skills.
You did a great job of explaining the unease I'm starting to feel around the whole "hacking since middle school" ideal. Besides the gender and class bias that result, it's just lazy thinking.
I say this, of course, as a straight white male who has been hacking since elementary school.
You did a great job of explaining the unease I'm starting to feel around the whole "hacking since middle school" ideal. Besides the gender and class bias that result, it's just lazy thinking.
I say this, of course, as a straight white male who has been hacking since elementary school.
> We overvalue people who have been "hacking since middle school"
Nothing specifically Dark Ages about this. I think that's true with many fields. It's the theme of the child prodigy. A painter, a violinist, an athelete would all be given special notice if the excelled at these skills at a young age. One would expect an excellent engineer to grow up playing with legos or building toy bridges.
Perhaps this is a practice that doesn't do us any good, and should be done away with, but it is not at all limited to programming.
Nothing specifically Dark Ages about this. I think that's true with many fields. It's the theme of the child prodigy. A painter, a violinist, an athelete would all be given special notice if the excelled at these skills at a young age. One would expect an excellent engineer to grow up playing with legos or building toy bridges.
Perhaps this is a practice that doesn't do us any good, and should be done away with, but it is not at all limited to programming.
As to engineers, while people might expect that correlation to exist, no company actually cares whether a candidate played with legos as a kid. It would be absurd to even bring it up in an interview. Engineering companies expect that any skills you need to do the job will either have been taught in school, or will be taught to you by the company.
What's "dark ages" is grouping programmers together with painters or violinists or athletes rather than other engineers. It's the result of not having a systematic theory of the skills necessary for the profession, and not having a way of taking people with the requisite mathematical aptitude and instilling those skills in a formal way.
What's "dark ages" is grouping programmers together with painters or violinists or athletes rather than other engineers. It's the result of not having a systematic theory of the skills necessary for the profession, and not having a way of taking people with the requisite mathematical aptitude and instilling those skills in a formal way.
Do middle-schoolers who will be doctors take apart animals in their spare time? Do the future-lawyers sue people?
Violinists, painters (presumably the artist type, not the outside-of-my-house type), and athletes are in career paths vastly different from engineers, doctors, or lawyers. There are very few people who actually support themselves with careers in the former.
Even though I have been coding since 2nd grade, I'd hate for that to become some kind of career filter to keep people out.
Violinists, painters (presumably the artist type, not the outside-of-my-house type), and athletes are in career paths vastly different from engineers, doctors, or lawyers. There are very few people who actually support themselves with careers in the former.
Even though I have been coding since 2nd grade, I'd hate for that to become some kind of career filter to keep people out.
The career path is different, but mindset is very similar. As far as mindset goes, I find I have a lot more in common with the artist or musician than with the doctor or lawyer.
And much like the artist or actor, but probably unlike the lawyer or doctor, I'd probably pursue my technical passions (at least as a hobby) even if there was very little money in it.
And much like the artist or actor, but probably unlike the lawyer or doctor, I'd probably pursue my technical passions (at least as a hobby) even if there was very little money in it.
As someone who grew up thinking he wanted to be an attorney (until I realized how much paper work there was), I grew up participating in debate club and mock court. My sister grew up wanting to be a doctor and would research various illnesses and learn all about them; she is now in school for medicine. This sort of thing might not happen in every field, but the two you pointed to are probably not the best examples, since both of these behaviors are pretty common for kids interested in law and medicine.
A "practice"? It's called reality.
There's a reason why most top professional athletes started their sports at a very young age. It isn't coincidence or societal convention.
There's a reason why most top professional athletes started their sports at a very young age. It isn't coincidence or societal convention.
That analogy doesn't fly. Top professional athletes are truly exceptional in a way programmers are not. They're the 0.01%. They're a good analogy to maybe Fields Medalists, not people working at Facebook.
I mentioned "top athletes", since they're a very visible part of the curve where we can demonstrate that longevity in a field from an early age increases likelihood of success.
I would expect that all levels of athletic performers would benefit likewise - although they won't end up in the top 0.01%.
We like to flatter ourselves and think that programming isn't a skill like athletic performance, but that's just because it makes us feel better since it's harder to measure.
I would expect that all levels of athletic performers would benefit likewise - although they won't end up in the top 0.01%.
We like to flatter ourselves and think that programming isn't a skill like athletic performance, but that's just because it makes us feel better since it's harder to measure.
It's not so much about skills (there are no skills that a 25yo hacking since 10 would have that a 55yo hacking since 40 wouldn't), but about selection: people who were more interested in computers than anything else at 10 -- and were spending all their time doing that, for absolutely no monetary or other reward, are going to be far better at doing programming (again, at any age) than someone who isn't that interested. And when there is an opportunity for such an interest to show, it would show early. Making sure that opportunity is there for most people would go a long way towards equalizing the gender ratios.
I can get a job at a giant company where I'll write 2000 lines of code in a year.
Wait, what? 2000 lines of code per year? Having never worked in a "giant" company, is that typical? I do that in about 10 days at a normal pace, and can do it in five if I'm really pushing it to meet a deadline or whatever.
Anyway, I thought 4K LOC/month was pretty standard for programmers of all stripes, or ~50K LOC/year. Is it really just 2K?
/shocked
Wait, what? 2000 lines of code per year? Having never worked in a "giant" company, is that typical? I do that in about 10 days at a normal pace, and can do it in five if I'm really pushing it to meet a deadline or whatever.
Anyway, I thought 4K LOC/month was pretty standard for programmers of all stripes, or ~50K LOC/year. Is it really just 2K?
/shocked
The Mythical Man Month gives 10 lines per day: http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~parrt/course/601/lectures/man.month....
Some of the best coders I've seen probably have negative LOC/month counts.
I am a huge fan of deleting code. And I've landed commits that killed thousands of lines in one go, so I'm pretty sure I'm in the negative.
Yes, 4k LOC/months is standard, regardless if you write assembly, haskell or C. whether you work through a mill of bureaucracy or you are in charge of your own project. These 2k LOC/year coders must surely be unproductive.
I'm sorry, but that's just a false blaming statement and completely counterproductive to the conversation. There is absolutely zero evidence correlating LOC and productivity.
About the only time you could link LOC to productivity is in the very early stages of a project - where some type of visible progress is needed to plan for a possible feature set for the release.
Sarcastic statements are considered to be negative blaming statements. They don't help the conversation.
About the only time you could link LOC to productivity is in the very early stages of a project - where some type of visible progress is needed to plan for a possible feature set for the release.
Sarcastic statements are considered to be negative blaming statements. They don't help the conversation.
I think they were being sarcastic.
These "LOC/month" comparisons are pretty useless, because it depends on the programming language and the project. One can churn out loads of code in languages like Java and C#, whereas dynamically typed concise languages usually need less lines of code.
It depends on what you are doing, pure maintenance work is very very low LOC.
Wait, are you saying that college is too late to learn how to program?
I didn't begin programming until college (I'm a white male in the US), and I've gotten paid to do it ever since.
That's me on the AUTHORS list for Google Chrome's v8 engine [0] (I ported it, and Node.js, to Solaris if your curious), so I'm at least competent enough to do that.
Anyway, that's proof that it can be done, and at a level that make a difference somewhere. :)
That said, I don't like to code, so maybe that has something to do with why I started late. I was into computers from pre-school onwards, though.
[0] https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/branches/bleeding...
That's me on the AUTHORS list for Google Chrome's v8 engine [0] (I ported it, and Node.js, to Solaris if your curious), so I'm at least competent enough to do that.
Anyway, that's proof that it can be done, and at a level that make a difference somewhere. :)
That said, I don't like to code, so maybe that has something to do with why I started late. I was into computers from pre-school onwards, though.
[0] https://code.google.com/p/v8/source/browse/branches/bleeding...
I didn't begin programming until after college, actually. But I had a math degree by then (theoretical math, not even applied). I had developed that curiosity and drive, however, and I think college is too late for that.
edit - I mean for large numbers. The exceptions are always wonderful to see.
another edit - I also don't think that most programming is about programming, it's about figuring out how things work. Just learning to program doesn't help with programming very much. "Figuring out how things work" needs a name, and that's what needs to be taught.
edit - I mean for large numbers. The exceptions are always wonderful to see.
another edit - I also don't think that most programming is about programming, it's about figuring out how things work. Just learning to program doesn't help with programming very much. "Figuring out how things work" needs a name, and that's what needs to be taught.
Actually you are a good confirmation of the bias. You didn't start until college, and you don't like to code.
I interpreted it as if the individual doesn't have an innate curiosity and need for answers, how things work, how to tweak things, an endless desire to learn. If they don't have that "hacker spirit", then it's unlikely they are going to be immensely successful or game-changing.
Anyone can get a job doing coding from learning it at any age.
Anyone can get a job doing coding from learning it at any age.
Is college too late to learn arithmetic? I would equate the two; in fact, I have wondered for a while if we could actually replace arithmetic lessons in elementary school with programming lessons (and have students learn arithmetic by implementing it in code). You still have a malleable brain in college, but picking up an entirely new way to think becomes harder as you age.
Gee, I don't know. Grace Hopper learned to program quite late in life and she did ok. Maybe it's not WHEN people start to code, it's HOW they start to code and whether they learn while doing it? Big-time athletes don't appear because they were kings of the middle-school playground for 10 years, they participate in an increasingly intensive program that winnows out pretty much everybody who participates.
I don't think that we see a huge number of failed programmers ending up as insurance salesmen or financial advisors because they blew out a knee.
I don't think that we see a huge number of failed programmers ending up as insurance salesmen or financial advisors because they blew out a knee.
I think the argument is that statistically speaking, it's too late to produce passion in large quantities. It's not just about one person discovering code, it's about getting enough to close the gap.
I'm not sure I agree... many people discover things in college that they've never heard of and subsequently major in. But it's at least debatable.
I'm not sure I agree... many people discover things in college that they've never heard of and subsequently major in. But it's at least debatable.
There are a lot of other things too. We live in what I call the "economic order of fake-gender-neutrality" where women get ahead by foregoing having families. This means that a certain kind of woman is going to be interested in taking high-risk long-hours work like being a tech founder. Not someone like my grandmother who was a tenured astrophysicist while raising four children.
I know this is probably not going to go over well on HN given the connections to VC's but a major part of the problem is that "tech founders" means businesses caught in the VC exit strategy. But I think a lot of the really disruptive businesses of tomorrow are going to be lifestyle businesses, and if you want to attract women to coding, I think that lifestyle businesses are a better deal for most people. The potential payoffs are lower, it is true, but the freedom is higher, and the security is better in many cases. And with a lifestyle business, the freedom to have a family, and to integrate family and work time, makes the challenges that face child-rearing men and women (but they affect women at a younger age) easier to handle.
I think that as one starts to show that these lifestyle businesses are really viable in technology, that we will see women come (and truth be told, probably become the majority of coders in open source software).
I know this is probably not going to go over well on HN given the connections to VC's but a major part of the problem is that "tech founders" means businesses caught in the VC exit strategy. But I think a lot of the really disruptive businesses of tomorrow are going to be lifestyle businesses, and if you want to attract women to coding, I think that lifestyle businesses are a better deal for most people. The potential payoffs are lower, it is true, but the freedom is higher, and the security is better in many cases. And with a lifestyle business, the freedom to have a family, and to integrate family and work time, makes the challenges that face child-rearing men and women (but they affect women at a younger age) easier to handle.
I think that as one starts to show that these lifestyle businesses are really viable in technology, that we will see women come (and truth be told, probably become the majority of coders in open source software).
We live in what I call the "economic order of fake-gender-neutrality" where women get ahead by foregoing having families.
I wouldn't really call this a women's issue, so much as a universal issue for people of all backgrounds.
Having a family simply requires a drastic lifestyle shift no matter what (well, if you intend on being a decent spouse and/or parent, at least), as well as certain sacrifices to one's career.
I like the proposal of lifestyle technology businesses, though I'm not entirely sure how they would work. Unless you're self-sufficient, in which case it's never been a problem.
I wouldn't really call this a women's issue, so much as a universal issue for people of all backgrounds.
Having a family simply requires a drastic lifestyle shift no matter what (well, if you intend on being a decent spouse and/or parent, at least), as well as certain sacrifices to one's career.
I like the proposal of lifestyle technology businesses, though I'm not entirely sure how they would work. Unless you're self-sufficient, in which case it's never been a problem.
We run something which could be considered a lifestyle tech business. Several of our staff, including women, have had kids and come back to work with us. One of our developers is in fact coming back from 6 months paternity leave this month.
BTW, I am referring to lifestyle business specifically as one not tied to the VC exit strategy. I.e. a business is a lifestyle business as long as you are neither trying to be an acquisition target nor trying to build up to go public.
The point is that you don't have the same kinds of relentless pressure in that environment that you do in a vc-backed start-up. Those are different environments. If you are running one, great. I wish you the best of luck.
The point is that you don't have the same kinds of relentless pressure in that environment that you do in a vc-backed start-up. Those are different environments. If you are running one, great. I wish you the best of luck.
Thanks and yes. We have no exit strategy nor would we be able to go public, as we are non-profit foundation. Fast growing and doing good in the world is a good place to be.
Yes having a family is something that affects everyone. But on average the burden of childcare is significantly biased towards the mother.
Men spend about 33% as much time on house work and about 42% as much time on childcare as women do.
Men spend about 33% as much time on house work and about 42% as much time on childcare as women do.
> "Having a family simply requires a drastic lifestyle shift no matter what (well, if you intend on being a decent spouse and/or parent, at least), as well as certain sacrifices to one's career."
This is true. However two things:
1. Men can delay that shift longer than women and still have families, and
2. The burdens are more flexible for men even at their worst. Men can, for example, reschedule paternity leave shifting it around by a few days in a crisis. Women cannot do the same for maternity leave.
So the burdens are not the same even when you get rid of social questions of family structure and gender impacts of that.
This is true. However two things:
1. Men can delay that shift longer than women and still have families, and
2. The burdens are more flexible for men even at their worst. Men can, for example, reschedule paternity leave shifting it around by a few days in a crisis. Women cannot do the same for maternity leave.
So the burdens are not the same even when you get rid of social questions of family structure and gender impacts of that.
Pando just published an article on a super-model who also writes and releases her own iPhone apps, codes also in python. I guess you could also say she is a software engineer who dabbles in modeling.
http://pando.com/2014/01/02/from-coding-to-the-catwalk-this-...
http://pando.com/2014/01/02/from-coding-to-the-catwalk-this-...
I just want to point out that this story has been shot down off the front page, and 2nd page, in less than 20 minutes. HN really can't handle having the spotlight revealing its thoughts on gender & race. My browser history was the only reason I could even find this link again.
You know what someone should make in 2014? A website scrapes/mirrors HN, but only the topics about gender and race that get "disappeared"(made undiscoverable) from HN in under 20mins.
You know what someone should make in 2014? A website scrapes/mirrors HN, but only the topics about gender and race that get "disappeared"(made undiscoverable) from HN in under 20mins.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices -- this is the second time I've seen this happen, on a gender/race thread. The previous one was related to blackgirlscode.com.
I don't know if there's a certain group of people flagging these types of articles for whatever reason, or if pg/admins actively want to avoid this kind of social discussion (maybe it's too 'controversial' or tends to degenerate too easily?) or something else.
But you're exactly right -- a gender/race article suddenly jumps from the #10 spot, to third-page, effectively completely killing discussion. It does feel an awful lot like censorship, and it seems unfortunate.
And because of it, pretty much nobody except you will probably ever see this comment. Oh well.
I don't know if there's a certain group of people flagging these types of articles for whatever reason, or if pg/admins actively want to avoid this kind of social discussion (maybe it's too 'controversial' or tends to degenerate too easily?) or something else.
But you're exactly right -- a gender/race article suddenly jumps from the #10 spot, to third-page, effectively completely killing discussion. It does feel an awful lot like censorship, and it seems unfortunate.
And because of it, pretty much nobody except you will probably ever see this comment. Oh well.
I already collect links on race, I might start collecting the gender-related stories as well.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6885123 - Homeless coder starts app
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6365495 - Africans genetically more corrupt?
3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6448409 - Rick Ross's history
4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6857739 - Nelson Mandela dies
5. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6035263 - (Most obvious)Resume with black vs white name
6. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6902563 - racist+sexist mindset in Harvard
7. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6907915 - Homeless coder finishes app
8. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975732 - BlackGirlsCode event
I you don't want to miss anything use a feed reader that stays up 24 hours. Since I don't have a server and I a power off my computer when I am not using it, I use Feedly.
It's not about me; it's about everyone seeing it.
The author mentions child care, shared responsibility, financial support, parents etc. But all these things matter after it might already be too late to get into coding. The fundamental issue that needs to be addressed is the one PG made last week: "God knows what you would do to get 13 year old girls interested in computers."*
Instead of having a discussion on what is probably the single most important factor affecting gender inequality in tech, PG was forced to defend. For these reasons, gender discussions have become somewhat pointless. There is no place for candidness. Everyone is trying to be politically correct and to say things that people want to hear.
*Most of the arguments against this seemed to rely on exceptions, random examples and personal experience, and not on stats.
Instead of having a discussion on what is probably the single most important factor affecting gender inequality in tech, PG was forced to defend. For these reasons, gender discussions have become somewhat pointless. There is no place for candidness. Everyone is trying to be politically correct and to say things that people want to hear.
*Most of the arguments against this seemed to rely on exceptions, random examples and personal experience, and not on stats.
> will produce a Mark Zuckerberg, who will go on to build a billion-dollar company in roughly seven years
The entire premise to this article is based on a misled expectation. The expectation is that there should be a billion dollar startup founded by a woman. Who set that expectation and why is it reasonable?
I'm a man, and I don't aspire to build a billion dollar company. I aspire to be insanely happy, and love what I do for a living. And travel a bit. Given we're entering a new age of humanity, shouldn't we be spending clock cycles on figuring out how to be happier, instead of just wanting more stuff?
BTW, 'more stuff' is not inclusive of 'fair and equal treatment'. We all deserve to be treated equally.
The entire premise to this article is based on a misled expectation. The expectation is that there should be a billion dollar startup founded by a woman. Who set that expectation and why is it reasonable?
I'm a man, and I don't aspire to build a billion dollar company. I aspire to be insanely happy, and love what I do for a living. And travel a bit. Given we're entering a new age of humanity, shouldn't we be spending clock cycles on figuring out how to be happier, instead of just wanting more stuff?
BTW, 'more stuff' is not inclusive of 'fair and equal treatment'. We all deserve to be treated equally.
> Meanwhile, it is still socially acceptable for men to focus wholeheartedly on their career.
Right, but so maybe the goal shouldn't be that women should be able to do the same... what if it could instead stop being socially acceptable for men to focus wholeheartedly on their career?
Think of all the men who wish they'd spent more time with their kinds, instead of at the office. More time with their wives. Think of all the divorces caused by the long hours and stress of management and C-suite jobs. Even if men want to spend more time with their families, it's often just not socially acceptable, within the culture of their company/industry. Men who take full advantage of "maternity" leave aren't exactly looked at as promotion material, all too often. And think of how much of life they miss out on.
We hold up Steve Jobs as a model of shining corporate success. But it's become public knowledge that he wasn't exactly so shining when it came to being a good dad.
Maybe it's not just necessarily the mindset around women that needs to change -- maybe it's the mindset around men.
Right, but so maybe the goal shouldn't be that women should be able to do the same... what if it could instead stop being socially acceptable for men to focus wholeheartedly on their career?
Think of all the men who wish they'd spent more time with their kinds, instead of at the office. More time with their wives. Think of all the divorces caused by the long hours and stress of management and C-suite jobs. Even if men want to spend more time with their families, it's often just not socially acceptable, within the culture of their company/industry. Men who take full advantage of "maternity" leave aren't exactly looked at as promotion material, all too often. And think of how much of life they miss out on.
We hold up Steve Jobs as a model of shining corporate success. But it's become public knowledge that he wasn't exactly so shining when it came to being a good dad.
Maybe it's not just necessarily the mindset around women that needs to change -- maybe it's the mindset around men.
I was waiting to find an article clearly speaking about this; which I think is the elephant in the room when it comes to female tech founders.
The issue, as it points out, is not being able to hack; or being able to learn, etc. Society has been proven over and over that females can do just as good as males.
The issue, I think, is purely social. Most people still see women with through a veil of prejudices, and this will only change with time as more women venture into that part of the industry.
Founding is barely about learning how to code. It's more about human relationships and networking. And as long as the image of a female entrepreneur keeps been looked down at, this problem will keep rising. May be it's not as easy to see in USA but I've seen it clearly in my country (Mexico) in small-medium businesses conventions and with clients.
Founding is barely about learning how to code. It's more about human relationships and networking. And as long as the image of a female entrepreneur keeps been looked down at, this problem will keep rising. May be it's not as easy to see in USA but I've seen it clearly in my country (Mexico) in small-medium businesses conventions and with clients.
We can encourage women to participate and welcome them with open arms, but that won't undo the thousands of years of ongoing cross-cultural practices that reinforce a woman's primary role as a nurturer (and I am not just talking about nurturing children).
The bit in brackets is referring to compiler bootstrapping.
The bit in brackets is referring to compiler bootstrapping.
> you cannot just cram more transistors onto a chip in order to double it is speed
> Please bear with me as I draw an analogy using history. In 1865 the U.S. government abolished slavery. [...], and it wasn't until 2008 that we elected our first African American president. Doing the math it took 143 years before African American were supposedly on equal political footing!
By this logic, I guess white women are (politically) disadvantaged compared to black (men) today?
By this logic, I guess white women are (politically) disadvantaged compared to black (men) today?
Would you challenge that? I'm a bit out of my league here, but it seems like there are proportionally more black men in politics than white women. ("Disadvantaged" is a poor word for these stats; however, because it implies that white women are interested in being in politics, but these stats don't confirm/deny that.)
> Would you challenge that?
It was a question.
It was a question.
Men supporting the notion that their female significant other can contribute as an equal partner financially or be the bread-winner of the household....leaving the choice of taking care of elderly parents up to women.
Ok, sounds good. No one owes anyone anything, you can do as you like with your life. No social obligations.
Having supportive social and economic practices for those who do chose to have children and take care of aging family members, which will need to be reinforced by some body such as companies or governments.
Wait what? So non-mothers owe mothers "support", socially and economically?
I'd love to know the philosophical underpinnings of this odd combination of individualism and collectivism. I do hope it's something more interesting than simply "the universe should make my chosen lifestyle easier!"
(Incidentally, it's incoherent articles like this one which have convinced me that more people should learn philosophy. I describe it as incoherent simply because it has a gaping philosophical hole, and no attempt whatsoever is made to explain it.)