I'm sorry if it wasn't your intent to steal focus. What you did, whether intentional or not, is a common derailing tactic.

If he hasn't seen any compelling evidence of [Issue X], then for him it remains unresolved. Rather than being offended that his mind isn't made up the right way, you might consider sharing whatever evidence makes you convinced that [Issue X] is a problem.

---

assertion - a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason (from dictionary.com)

That seems like a perfectly fitting word to me.

As I said in the other reply, there is no way to perfectly measure discrimination. If you don't trust the various testimonies by women in the tech industry and would rather plug your ears, please do not further this discussion.

Links to check out:

http://www.stubbornella.org/content/2010/07/26/woman-in-tech...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/edlife/12STABINE.html

http://www.bluepoof.com/Colloquium/attitudes.html

http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html

"CS education works best for people who already know how to code before they begin. CS teaches the theory behind a practice in which they assume you already have some skill..."

"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts..."

"Women are less likely to jump up and say “me! me! me!” "

"Recognize the need for work-life balance. Most women still have primary responsibility for children and home."

I didn't bother with your other links.

"I believe CS and Web Development currently select for certain masculine qualities that are largely unrelated to someone’s prowess as a coder. I believe it is these tangential code-cowboy qualities women are unable or unwilling to emulate, and not their skill or capacity for abstraction, problem solving, creative thinking, or communication — All of which actually make them better developers."

"Scholarships like the one Google proposes aren’t meant to give women of lower merit something they don’t deserve, they are meant to circumvent the discrimination that extremely talented women still face."

You also pulled your quotes completely out of context.

I realize the author doesn't believe that spending time on your work, improving your skills and solving abstract puzzles matter. Maybe she's right, though I prefer employees who don't need hand holding. But that's irrelevant - rewarding autodidacts, puzzle-lovers and hard workers is not discrimination.

"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts when practical applications where you can see the why and how might work better for women (and a hell of a lot of men). I like yummy algorithms, but we could make CS education more accessible by putting them in context."

Your third quote has to do with the environment that exists— not because women don't inherently participate.

From the article: "She said that CS is the only science where the participation of women is getting worse not better. We have a problem. We’re geeks (supposed to be good at problem solving). So let’s figure it out!

I think we should look at:

[The bulleted list from which I quoted some items]"

According to her, these particular items are reasons why women specifically are not participating in tech.

And again - focusing a CS class on algorithms is not discrimination.

No one is saying a class on algorithms is discrimination. Are you intentionally misconstruing her article or are you truly this confused?

I'm not addressing the issue of gender discrimination.

I'm saying that your rhetorical approach, which seems to be "loudly proclaim that everyone should magically see things the same way I do," is ridiculous.

Look, if lack of diversity can only be explained by discrimination, you need to show that the field where women are most underrepresented - higher mathematics - is also the most rife with discrimination. I've never seen a female mathematician suggest it is. How do you explain this?

Just because you have not seen it does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't have any experience with higher mathematics, but let's take programming. Would the existence of a women-centric programming club be proof enough of the discrimination women face? What about the blog posts of women in CS courses expressing their disdain for their male classmates/teachers? Or the attempts to attract women into the field?

Would a whites-centric golf club be proof enough of the discrimination white people face? Would a blog post of a white man in basketball expressing disdain for his black teammates similarly be evidence of discrimination against whites?

I know this isn't what a lot of HNers like to hear, but discrimination exists whether you can measure it with a ruler or not. This is one of those things where you have to piece together anecdotal evidence with an empirical lack of women to get the answer.

If you're sure it is, and you're actually interested in these questions, investigating discrimination in tech when you could be investigating discrimination in higher mathematics is like studying swedish-norwegian racism when you could be studying black-white racism.

You don't need personal experience, just casually google it for a while and report your findings.

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me because, again, I'm not familiar with higher mathematics. I can't say, "Yes, higher mathematics relates to the tech industry like racism against Norwegians relates to racism against black people."

Another non-realistic explanation would be that women collectively do not want to go into tech despite being equally good at it as men. As in, there isn't any discrimination, and they would be just as suited as men, but most women just go, "Meh. Don't care." for some reason.

I've heard both of these things and neither of them make any sense.

- I am /of the opinion/ that young women have greater social intelligence and nuanced sensitivity than young men.

- And, that (IMO) here in America there is a prevalent negative social attitude towards nerds/geeks/intellectuals.

- Matters have certainly improved since the realization that "nerds" can become tycoons, and some are recognized. But it should be noted that this does not indicate a change is societal attitude towards geeks. Linus Torvalds is not a household name. Zuckermann is well known, but he is a business success and celebrated for his business (and yes, social), and not technical, acumen.

- The field, in my experience, is one of the most meritocratic in existence today in our society (which is the primary reason I continue a professional practice). I would code for fun, regardless.

- But, it is certainly true in my experience that the workforce was and remains preponderantly male, although it seems to have improved (but see below).

The summation of above considerations gives support to a thought that is further reinforced by a consideration of the female colleagues I have worked with over the past 20 years:

Every single one was either an immigrant (1 Israeli, 1 Romanian, 1 Pakistani, 1 Brazilian, & recently quite a few Indian and/or Russian/Eastern European women), or, the designated brainiac social minority group that themselves celebrate cerebral members, e.g. Jewish and Asian Americans, etc. In fact, my first female coworker (who happened to also be my boss/team-lead) was a Cooper Union grad and a Chinese American.

Finally, let me tell you a very simple human fact: most of us men in the field would probably be very happy to have a more balanced work environment. So the thought that we would go out of our way to discriminate against women flies in the face of both personal experience (I interviewed and selected the Israeli and the Romanian as the de facto CTO of a startup in '89), and my general understanding of my fellow male geeks.

(Also, note that I made an effort to reach out to a fellow geek (female, of course) that I only know via her github projects. She confirmed that "agism" was what concerned her most.)

None of this is to offer a conclusive explanation, but I am of the strong opinion that:

when the day arrives that (American) society adopts the same social respect/capital towards its cerebral members that it currently affords business, media, and sports personalities, will be the day that will see young cerebral women make the (intelligent and thoughtful) choice to enter into the field (and related fields, such as Mathematics) in greater numbers.

(End opinion)

You aren't willing to debate it, which is a perfectly legitimate (if elitist) sentiment to express.

Your entire strategy in writing has been to combat while loudly saying you aren't going to fight.