I just wanted to state that, for the record, having these sorts of discussions on hacker news is extremely distressing to me. I've worked hard to get the accreditations that I have, and I usually enjoy the things I read on this website. But just imagine for a moment how all this appears to an aspiring programmer when she wakes up in the morning and checks her favorite technical content aggregator.
Like, yeah, none of you are saying that ALL women are less capable than ALL men, but what I'm reading here is the subtext. When I pursue a career in this field, how will my coworkers perceive me? Will I be treated with respect? Or will I be seated next to someone who is convinced that there is a gender war going on, and thereby offended by my very presence?
In all honesty, recently I've seen underperforming women get promoted to positions they shouldn't have been promoted to because of political pressures, so there is going to be some sense of "is she competent or is she a diversity hire/promotion?" They also might think, does she really enjoy tech, is she a nerd like me, or is she just looking for a cushy office job in software that the "diversity/women-in-X" groups are so loudly promoting.
As an immigrant wondering how the natives perceive me, I've learned that one has to do their best and be assertive when it's necessary.
Ultimately it depends on luck. To split the world in ones tribe and "the other" is human nature, and not discussing things on HN won't make things better...
*Sexism has can take many shapes others than direct attacks on women.
Edit: Interesting how this went from +5 to -5 in minutes. Very controversial topic, eh?
The more we keep framing things in the context of hiring to meet gender based quotas, the more people will see us as diversity hires. I would hate that more than knowing someone doesn't like me because of my gender because that persons mind I can maybe change via my skills and work.
Of course she doesn't want the community to censor itself.
She is describing how such discussions are distressing to women (and not merely to herself, as you seem to state). She gives the example of an aspiring programmer stumbling on HN, noticing all the subtle sexism and giving up STEM. Which is precisely the issue that we should be debating.
In short, her point isn't "don't talk about it" but "don't be a bigot about it". Don't talk about it as if women weren't reading the threads. As if amongst boys.
A lot of those threads end up circle-jerking into a "men vs. women" debate while the actual debate should be "what is it in our communities that is driving women away?"
My point in that reply was that she shouldn't be the one blocking those threads, her point of view as a woman is vital in such a debate. It should be us that act more civilized instead.
The problem is not with having a debate; the problem is the sheer level of hostility present in this thread.
Sexism and harassment is rampant in this field, as well as any male dominated field.
Congrats!
> extremely distressing to me.
Why?
> just imagine [..] appears to an aspiring programmer
Hmm...how do you think it should appear? You hint (strongly), but you don't really say.
> none of you are saying that ALL women are less capable than ALL men,
Yes. As in: not even a bit.
First, most of the talk is about preferences, not ability. Second, if anything it is about distributions that have large overlaps, with average ability being the same and with differences (in STEM), if anywhere, mostly in the width of the distribution (so males may have wider variance). Third, there is apparently one difference in ability, which then reflects itself in preference: women with high math scores tend to also have high verbal scores, whereas men with high math scores tend to only have high math scores, they are not good at the verbal bits. And statistically, people of either gender with high scores in both prefer going into non-STEM fields.
Fourth (going back to the second point): all of these are at most distributions. They say absolutely nothing about any individual. For example, I am a guy but despite the fact that I scored high in both math and verbal parts (and absolutely atrociously at the 3D mental rotation that supposedly explains a slight edge for guys in STEM), and was interested in (a) physics (b) english literature and linguistics (c) philosophy here I am as a programmer.
> but what I'm reading here is the subtext.
What is the subtext you're reading? Can you be specific?
What I see, text and subtext is an entire field defending itself from being smeared as sexist assholes with zero credible evidence of this being true and due almost entirely to choices other people make, choices that the people in this field have absolutely no influence over.
> [How will be perceived/respected etc.]
This will depend almost entirely on your individual circumstances, meaning most people will treat you with respect if you treat them with respect and behave respectably yourself. If you enter as a gender warrior, things might be different. Is this a 100% guarantee? Nope, nothing is. Assholes exist. In every industry.
If I told you the things that have happened to me in this industry, you probably wouldn't believe me, and if I claimed this happened to a woman, it would be seen as surefire proof of the systemic sexism in the industry. Except it happened to a guy, so whatever. And if shit happens to you, you probably want to assume it is because there are shitty people, not because of your gender.
A 2008 survey[1] by the ACM that actually interviewed both men and women didn't find significant differences in most parameters of job satisfaction, and in fact women reported slightly higher support by their superior than men did.
[1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...
Why?
Women aren't, on the whole, passively "driven away". They actively choose other careers that interest them more.
Or why is it that men are "driven away" from veterinary science and early childhood education, while women choose not to go into computer science and mechanical engineering?
I find this the most distressing thing about these discussions: that women in the most progressive, egalitarian nations in space and time are suddenly regarded as passive vessels pushed around by outside forces, rather than as strong, active shapers of their own destinies.
I just don't understand.
That being said, I've seen it with males as well, but it has been more of the one guy on the team gets his MBA/college buddy hired kind of thing. In both cases, employees would be rightfully skeptical because of outside influences in the hiring/promotion process that are trying to purposefully achieve some end goal.
My wife, who formerly worked as a software dev, hated this aspect of the industry because there were so many women-in-tech groups that were trying to help (a.k.a. coddle) her achieve something she could easily achieve on her own by her own technical acumen. In similar vain, I've gotten jobs because of who I know more than what I know before (in my case it was because I'm a submarine vet and the hiring manager was also a former submariner), and yeah, it does undermine the sense of accomplishment that comes with doing something on your own.
The thing is, such practices also damage the self-image of the hire in question. Am I being hired for my abilities, or for being a number in some statistic?
Also, to clarify, I don't think people in this thread are frustrated at/by women. There's no "hostility" there. You may be seeing frustration at a social-justice-movement that they think either A) goes too far or B) debates unfairly by making it "un-pc" to make certain points they consider important to the debate.
If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.
I specifically meant hostility, not frustration; no need to beat about the bush. Frustration expresses itself differently. It's not about standing up for a cause, it's an attempt at aggressively controlling the debate.
> If you think having this debate itself is "hostile" to women, well then that's the exact type of behavior that gets interpreted as B above.
I had already stated that the problem is not with having the debate, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up again. The problem is with the form of the debate.
Now they are considering Black in Machine Learning too (or something like that).
This all just seems sexist and racist. Mathematics and statistics shouldn't be conditioned on race and gender! What's next, there are too many Jews who win the Nobel prize?? Doesn't this type of thinking remind people of the horrible past?
Novia (the OP of this comments thread) already started a career in STEM and "wanted to study math [her] whole life".
With those two facts, she should be the perfect candidate. However, she is still feeling pushed away.
She actively chose STEM and is put in such situations that she has to (as you recommended yourself) block out entire topics simply to avoid reading distressful and distasteful comments.
It wouldn't be too bad if our community only acted like that online and in specific threads. But that isn't the case.
Male "elitism" and subtle sexism is present in the day to day life of female developers.
Imagine how tiring it would be if wherever you went, people singled you out because you were nerdy or geeky. You wouldn't want to keep working in that field at all.
But why is that? Isn't what is driving these concerns these never-ending "women in STEM" discussions that paint the field in a very negative light?
If I were entering a field an constantly hearing how horrible it is, I would also be concerned.
> distressful and distasteful comments.
Why are comments that talk about distributions of preferences being a probable cause distressing? What is "distasteful" about them?
Why is it distressing/distasteful to say 'hey, the field you have chosen to enter is actually not full of horrible people that will treat you badly because you are a woman'? In fact, it is somewhat friendlier (some studies say a lot friendlier) to women than it is to men? How is that horrible?
To me, the consistent bombardment of claims that the field is horrible would be a much larger deterrent.
That's one of the problems. Nobody wants to be the special kid. The one you invite to all the meetings to be a token. The one who can't even be certain if their achievements are worthwhile or simply artificially inflated.
Being insincerely friendlier to women in a professional environment is, in fact, sexism. It is a form of gender prejudice and gender bias.
Hell I think that about all my colleagues whatever their gender is. Seen plenty of males don't really want to code, but it pays too well to not.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
I guess that means nothing these days.
It scares me when people start talking racially, especially like you. You call me a person of color (basically a new version of colored people). You see race first, content second.
This scares me because it wasn't too long ago that Jews were being thrown under the bus. And it scares me because now you might hate white people, but what if you start hating brown Indians like me (who have the highest family income in America), Asians, or Jews (you probably consider them to be white anyway).
This is just scary stuff man. I wonder how many of my liberals friends view race first.
As far as I can tell, the linked article is saying exactly the opposite - that women can be and are perfectly capable as programmers, but that the gender imbalance is probably not driven by exclusionary tactics on the part of the men who make up the majority. It is noteworty that I've never even heard of a woman saying that she actually pursued programming as a profession and found herself excluded - just that the ones who do are surprised how few other women they see.
Racism is the systematic disenfranchisement of a group of people based on their race. Correcting that disenfranchisement, empowering people who systematically don’t have power is literally the opposite of racism...
Pointing out that white people face massive advantages in the United States isn’t “hating white people”, it’s an obvious and undeniable fact. My ideal world is one where everyone is treated equally, and the road to that world isn’t just imagining everyone is treated equally and everyone enters the world with the same advantages, it is through acknowledging and correcting socioeconomic disparities.
Do you also believe Indians and Asians face a massive advantage in America? They are some of the most successful racial groups in America. Should their advantage be "corrected"? I guess it already happens via college acceptances...
How about Jews? Should we correct their advantage as well?
There is nothing wrong in addressing socioeconomic disparities. The lowest of our societies should be helped to a point of self sustanence and leadership. But it's just so offensive to call us all colored people, I mean people of color. Can I suggest not labeling people with higher melanin with that phrase? It reduces me down to a racial label and it makes me super uncomfortable. No kidding, it kinda reminds me of when I used to hear "Arab" or "terrorist" by right wing nut jobs as that label was also based on my race...
Don't think about it. Of many valid reasons to work to change ones behavior, I don't think this is one of them. All that effort you were spending trying to change something that 1. may not be happening and 2. if it is, is "pretty damn typical human psychology" (It's as old as humanity to find ways to look down on others) and there's not really pragmatic ways to stop that short of a lobotomy. Spend that effort on excelling in what you do. Bust ass and the people who matter will respect you regardless, and it makes it easier to tune out the ones who don't.
Feel free to ignore this advice, I've long since decided to avoid commenting in threads like the overarching, but your original concerns and question made me want to try and contribute at least something marginal :)
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clarence-thomas-and-...