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?