Is it hard to believe most men don't do those things, too? Some do, sure. And of people that do these things, historically more have probably been men than women (don't have the stats, but it sounds reasonable). But how many men do you think do those things, vs those that don't? Some anecdata: I didn't do any of those. Of all the engineers I can think of, male and female, very very few went to coding summer camps or took AP computer science. Few had best friends in CS in university, but sure, more did this than AP computer science or coding summer camp. And few had sweet internships at tech companies.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/01/techs-g...

>"It's already too late," Paul Graham, founder of the tech entrepreneur boot camp Y Combinator, said last month in a controversial interview. "What we should be doing is somehow changing the middle school computer science curriculum or something like that."

>Ericson's analysis of the data shows that in 2013, 18 percent of the students who took the [AP computer science] exam were women.

Who makes high school students' schedules? Parents and teachers, at least in the US.

So let's put aside anecdotes and reactionary attitudes and just look at the facts.

Again, men don't usually do the things you're claiming, either. You're claiming it with the language "women don't usually" because usually means more often than not - over half. But I'm open to changing my mind with stats. I'm happy to look at any you provide.

Do you have stats on most men being sent to coding summer camp as teenagers? Most men having parents that encourage them to take AP computer science? Most men having best friends who are in CS? Most men who refer them for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google?

Men usually don't do those things either. Just because more of the people that do those things are men than women, does not mean men, in general, do those things. That's my point.

But your argument distracts from the fact that the phenomenon she described is very real. Women face challenges at every turn as they try to get into tech. One of those challenges is people like you who want to nitpick everything they say.

Why are you arguing with her? What is the point of it? Can't you accept that the general argument that women struggle to exist in the tech industry is real?

You're like a global warming denier fixating over some discrepancy in the data. You're not wrong, it's just beside the point. We need to be arguing over how to fix our gender issues, not whether they exist. And one of those ways, without a doubt, is getting more women to take the AP CS exam and go to programming summer programs.

Just because you're factually correct (which I'm not conceding here, but it shouldn't matter) doesn't mean your point has any merit.

In a weird sort of coincidence, I was recently talking to all of my couple friends at a large party. Of the 5 couples there, only 1 person had any desire to see their child(ren) go into programming. That particular child was a boy.

So there's some more anecdata, but basically I've never heard a non-programmer parent say they want their child to go into programming. It's always been something along the lines of "I want my child to do the same thing I do" or "I want my child to be a doctor/lawyer/engineer"

You could argue that it's not a filter against women but a magnet towards men, but that doesn't actually change the crux of the argument. There is clearly something that causes only 18% of AP CS exams being taken by women.

Usually means "under normal conditions; generally." Generally means more often than not, meaning over half / most.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usually

I did NOT, you are misquoting me. I claimed (and cited) that OF the people who take AP CS and have the other resources I mentioned, most are men. That is all I claimed and you are all over this thread misinterpreting this.

You can check my original comment's edit history. I've changed nothing about what I said and I stand by it 100%.

You sound like a bad politician here. All I said is that GIRLS don't take AP CS and do not go to coding summer camp. The people who are doing these things are boys.

You have terrible reading comprehension and your pedantic citations of dictionaries and incorrect use of set theory belong on /r/iamverysmart

You have terrible reading comprehension and your pedantic citations of dictionaries and incorrect use of set theory belong on /r/iamverysmart

Ad hominems aren't appropriate on HN. It might be better if you took a breather at this point:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

At most, it implies that "more men than women generally do ______," which is totally true. Even that implication would be a bit of a leap were it not for parent's later explicit clarifications on the point.

Above, did I imply something about tall people's abilities to reach items on very high shelves? I didn't claim anything about tall people specifically. But I think I did make a claim about their abilities here, by implication, given the context. It's natural to infer the claim - this is just part of how people communicate. The claim is strongly implied - tall people can reach items on very high shelves.

I believe OP's clarified claim (of people in AP CS classes, most are men; of people at summer coding camps, most are men; etc), rather than OP's initial claim (most men take AP CS classes; etc). The clarified claim seems accurate. The initial claim is clearly inaccurate - and OP "stand[s] by it 100%".

It feels like we're dancing around the issue. There's no reason for this line of thought to have continued like it has. "My side" should have made a polite comment, and when rebuffed, thought "they don't think it's a problem," and moved on. "Your side" should have thought "a slight rephrase could increase clarity and address their concerns." Instead we're just pointlessly banging our heads against a wall.

As is, both sides of this argument are actually pretty stupid. Mine included.

Good point, thanks for introducing some sanity.

However, the implication of saying that something "usually" doesn't happen to women, is that it usually happens to men. These were very specific benefits that do not usually happen to anyone. The statement is just as invalid as a privilege denyer saying "poor white people have less privilege than rich black people", except they were made for "your side" rather than "the enemy's side".

As you were blasting "anecdotes", please note that this isn't even anecdote, just blind assertion, so: "Citation needed". In my experience, high school students largely decide their own schedules according to their interests and abilities.

Ahh, speaking of interests, and facts/data:

https://scientificfemanomaly.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/fem...

Interest by high school students in STEM fields. Girls 15% and falling, boys 45% and rising.

More facts/data:

http://mjperry.blogspot.de/2009/08/2009-math-sat-scores-are-...

Gender gap in SAT scores persists.

Yes, let's look at the facts!

How many men do you know who are ballet dancers? Do you think that's because there's actually something present in the DNA of little girls that's not present in the DNA of little boys that makes them interested in ballet?

Or could it be because if you're a little girl who dances it's cute/pretty and if you're a boy it's because you're gay/weak?

This is the problem. If men hold a monopoly on powerful or lucrative roles in society, that monopoly will reign through the establishment of gender-dichotomous "interests and passions." Of course gender doesn't play any intrinsic role in whether you're into ballet. Nor does it play any intrinsic role in whether you're into computer science.

Yes, probably related to the production of testosterone or a similar mechanism.

It's hardly surprising in a sexually dimorphic species.

Of course there are biological differences that surface in all of these things. The question is whether these differences by themselves account for the disparities. Of course the answer is no.

Applying this to interests, however, implies that there is a neurological difference that makes women worse at computer science. There is not methodologically sound data to back this up.

The students. AP comp sci at my high school was an elective that people took. The people who didn't take it chose whatever elective they were interested in (water basket weaving, guitar, etc.).

And what motivated the people to choose AP comp sci? This is just an anecdote but almost everyone in my AP comp sci class was into gaming/nerdy hobbies/internet forums/etc.

Social stigma plays a large role at that age; this is also when they start thinking about boys and having self expression (clothes, music, books). It's _nerdy_ to be interested in computers. The know-it-all also becomes the outcast. That's the geek or loser. There's nothing more important than social status. It's really unfortunate.

Why do you think social stigma only apply to girls?

This was before knowledge of comp sci salaries have gone mainstream (before 2012), although it's still a relevant, anecdotal reflection on the backgrounds of current software engineers.

My AP comp sci class was actually composed of non-high achieving people. AP comp sci was the only AP class many of the students took. The high achieving students didn't take AP comp sci for whatever reason.

I think AP comp sci was actually considered lower status/prestige compared to the sciences Physics/Chem/Bio among the high achieving students.

Maybe they didn't like to take classes filled with spiteful boys with chips on their shoulders? The 'whatever reason' is the important part.

I did a master's degree in computer science at the University of Texas at Arlington about 10 years ago. When I was there, I was one of only two white people (male or female) in the entire program, and one of only about five that weren't Indian citizens on special student visas. So Indian citizens, while making up a minuscule portion of the US population, represented 95+% of the CS student population at an American university.

So, which is it? Did UT Arlington commit a massive conspiracy to discriminate against white men? Or is it just that the people who were most interested and most inclined happened to be the ones that ended up there?

I think this is more of a "of the people that get these things, most are men" than a "all men get these things."

For those who still believe it's a feminist conspiracy, I encourage you to read this brief report (with links to an excellent full report) with hard numbers on the experience of women in STEM: https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-st...

And if you think you're above bias, or that it doesn't exist against women, please challenge yourself with the unconscious bias test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html Stats are available after the test. I am a woman with a PhD in a STEM field, and guess what - I have biases against my own sex.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12288/abstra... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288582440_Toward_a_...

   https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-st...

   feminist conspiracy

The other side of the coin is represented by neuroscientists trying to prove that the ladybrain is inferior at mathematics or evolutionary psychologists trying to assert that evolution has made women excel at caregiving and men at being hyperlogical.

    the only people actually researching this

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

There is no institutional conspiracy to suppress women, the problem is strictly cultural:

NONE of my daughter's female friends in high school thought it was cool to take on any of the math/physics/programming classes. They were all interested in environment, film/acting, fashion, literature...

This self-selection came predominantly from mass-media/pop-culture, and also, to some extent, from their mothers, none of whom works in tech (we are talking a wealthy suburb in the northeast US here). They never encouraged their daughters to go into tech. The fathers did, but not too convincingly, either.

Neither did any of the men. Not when I was in school, and not now. Being nerdy is not cool, whether you're a boy or a girl. In fact, you're more likely to get beaten up for it as a boy than as a girl.

Popular culture in the US massively lionizes professional sports, and shames younger people who are into programming and other non-social hobbies like nobody's business.

In my opinion, if "women in tech" programs put half of their resources into solving these problems, they'd be hugely more successful. Unfortunately, that involves taking on fields other than professional programming (like television, media, and such), which they are either not ready or equipped to do.

Good for you for pulling it together. Seriously. I went the service industry to community college route myself.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/usually https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/generally

My original use of "usually". I was talking about women with the "usually", not men. It is a FACT that 82% of the people taking AP computer science are boys. I am arguing that some of this discrepancy is because parents and society nurture this talents in boys, including boys that don't have a lot of natural ability. Which is fine! We need programmers, even mediocre programmers. I am saying nothing against the men who seized these opportunities, nor against the parents who encouraged them.

Read the medium article I linked.

Yes, that was part of your original use of "usually." The way you used it in context implied the opposite group experiences the list of things the other group usually doesn't. You communicated that while most women don't do x, y, and z, most men do x, y, and z. My claim is they don't. Yes - of those that do x, y, and z, most are men - but most men still do not do x, y, and z. What percentage of people take AP CS? Most men do not take AP CS (very few men take AP CS in the U.S. or world). Realize the experience you described as common among men isn't most men's experience, and not most people's experience in general. Even if most of the people who had it were men.

The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.

http://www.listen-tome.com/save-me/

I too find these HN threads really troubling. I'm very glad to hear you speak up.

I never mentioned men, but since you decided to make it a point, her generalization is that women are being denied these things. Given that there are two genders, I'll leave it as an exercise as to which one she's referring to when she lists these activities.

one half is not given the opportunity and other half is not participating out of their own will. So what's the point of talking about this at all if no one is doing it at all. Unless your assuption is girls need extra help while boys just get it on their own. Benevolent sexism?

>>It's not some feminist conspiracy that women are being promoted

You have to admit though that "diversity" is mentioned a lot and striving for "diversity" in fact makes it easier for women to get into management position. I am not saying it's the only factor but it is one impossible to deny.

My ex husband was career army. While in the military, he double majored in CS and history. He was a socially awkward nerd. He rose though the ranks quickly. He once admitted that while excelled at the technical stuff, the fact that he was married to me was a big part of why he was a decent manager once he got promoted to the military equivalent of mid level manager.

There have been studies that indicate women think of "morality" different from men -- that their idea of morality is more about caring about people. Perhaps the same traits -- caring about others -- that help make women good mothers also help make them good managers. The paternal role is typically different from the maternal one.

Not necessarily. You can be really talented and completely overlooked due to discrimination/bias/prejudice. There is plenty of evidence that people expect leaders to be tall, have deep voices, broad shoulders, etc -- ie look and sound like a man. They have studied this.

Others here are suggesting that women get promoted faster in IT because only the best and most dedicated stay. If you are already good and also happen to have traits that are beneficial when assigned managerial tasks, then that could go hand-in-hand.

They may be approaching diversity efforts all wrong. I suspect they are and I do my best to advocate for another path. However, most men who criticize this stuff do not genuinely seem to be interested in a better path forward. They seem to be interested in coming up with some justification for "we should keep advantaging men the way we do now -- that works for me! -- and stop trying to do anything to dismantle the very real barriers women face."

White males can have problems fitting in, too. Being born into a low social class is probably more damning to your future than any external quality you might have.

We need to accept that being inclusive isn't about focusing on a single group - that's singling people out again - but realize that people are being left out of whatever good thing we have as a society for any number of reasons.

Understand this, and just be more accepting of people in general.

e.g. "Women don't ask" - a book with concepts on salary negotiation vital to many men I know.

That said, historically there was clear gender/race discrimination. There is today in pockets, just as there is reverse discrimination.

We just have to stop the discrimination.

There is a low supply of female engineers, but rather than addressing the problem organizations implement various forms of affirmative action. Trying to fix discrimination with more discrimination.

My partner is in tech. My organization has a network to support women in their careers which my female coworkers view as outright anti-male discrimination.

Unfortunately, the bell curve doesn't support these policies. We have both worked with women who would have not held their position as men.

It's quite frustrating, as we now have capable women forging ahead while less competent women are riding the wave of feminism and tarnishing their reputations.

I'm curious. Have you not suffered this, or at least heard of it?

We can't make progress on this if we all continue to willfully ignore the flaws in our arguments.

However, the only thing we really know for sure, and for which there is a mountain of evidence, is that women as a group face significantly greater challenges in this industry than men do. That may filter for various traits in women such as greater levels of grit, but I'm going to wait until this particular survey is corroborated by further study before I buy into the idea that women and men in our industry are significantly differentiated by something like personal drive. I can believe it, but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion based on this evidence alone.

Great Medium article by the way.

Males aren't either. The difference in participation is caused by men engaging in nerdy hobbies more than women (trawling BB boards, playing online video games, etc.). Why this happens, no one really knows.

Interesting that when men statistically seem to have an advantage in any area, it's a "problem" that "needs to be corrected", but if women start to statistically dominate, it's clearly because "women are just better".

Mediocre women in tech just aren't allowed, whereas mediocre men are accepted. Try to read the article she linked.

Poor or even worse bullshit articles and poor citations just make the backlash worse, and even harder to get accepted without having to prove I'm at the least a mythical 2x-5x developer.

But, here you go, let's try showing you a survey and a study amongst the top Google hits for "women have to work harder for the same recognition" and see what you think:

https://news.virginia.edu/content/surveys-british-and-americ...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2013/02/24/superio...

---

[1] http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts...

When I discuss these and sometimes any issue really with engineers or scientists, I try to find technical research papers with null hypothesizes and methodology.

My point being for technical people like engineers, you aren't convincing a lot of people with light fluffy pieces without links to hard data, in fact you get them even more entrenched in their current way of thinking because they think you don't have real scientific evidence.

I've found in personal experience, technical people are far more open minded then the general population, but they tolerate far less bullshit.

I don't understand what you're looking for. I don't have juicy information you don't have, so I imagine if there is something out there that you searched and couldn't find, I don't think I'll succeed in finding it either.

I guess that means all that remains is intolerable bullshit?

> it's GENERALLY because it is something that you very much care about and want to do.

Given that there is a higher demand for IT jobs than supply makes this impossible. You just have to be good at it.