The Origin of Unix Pipes - <AUTHOR> http://doc.cat-v.org/unix/pipes/ <comment><USER2> In my very first job interview I was asked to explain Unix pipes and I used the analogy of garden hoses - only to be told that was a stupid way of explaining them!

<comment><USER3> I guess you're happy they did not hire you, right?

<comment><USER2> I did get the job :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1964.

It is truly amazing just how much of what we use, from big ideas to little ones, was invented in the 1960s.

<comment><USER5> Invention brings the idea to life. Innovation brings the ideas to market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One should forward this document to microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER7> According to Wikipedia the UNIX-Pipes came along in the 70s. This document however seems to refer to something called DTSS. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_(Unix)#History>

<comment><USER8> Wow - I actually added that entry about DTSS a few years after my father (Ken Lochner) died. It's kind of a trip to now read it on HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I asked this previously on SO - [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3121385/is-it-possible- to...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3121385/is-it-possible-to-make- something-like-osx-services-for-linux-by-leveraging-pipes)

What is the difference between OSX services and Unix pipes ? Could something like OSX services be built trivially on Linux ?

<comment><USER10> As the commenter on your SO post has mentioned, they are not actually the same thing. Pipes are a much lower level concept than these OSX services. Of course you could implement them on linux, and you might even want to use pipes to do it, but its not a terribly interesting problem. Really its just GUI design, not a unix thing at all.

<comment><USER9> Maybe my question was framed wrong.

If I ask about how a OSX-like services framework may be created, what is the answer ? For example, there are OSX services that remove spaces from text or even summarize paragraphs. IMHO, some of them are contextual - some services only show up as active when you copy a URL, etc.

They seem pretty nifty and I always wondered why Linux doesnt have something like this.

<comment><USER11> You keep asking the same question repeatedly, hoping that some magic combination of words will lead to a different answer.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2009/01/20/93411...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2009/01/20/9341164.aspx)

UNIX pipes are only a _tiny bit_ like OS X Services from a _user's perspective_. They are nothing alike from a program's perspective.

As others have said, UNIX pipes simply connect one program's standard output to another program's standard input. That's all. It uses the exact same mechanism that would otherwise show information to you and accept input from you.

OS X Services are a completely different, proprietary thing. It works via the 'Pasteboard' which is rather like a secondary clipboard. Apple created a specific interface which must be recognized by a program in order to supply OS X Services with data. This interface is wholly unrelated to the rest of the program's interfaces.

OS X Services are much more akin to something that you would build on Windows using COM, like a Windows Explorer Shell Extension.

If you wanted to recreate OS X Services on Linux, you would have to define some sort of new interface for exchanging data between applications, then convince developers around the world to add the new API into their programs.

<comment><USER9> thanks.

FYI - My question changed from the similarity of pipes and services to just thinking about how something like services could be implemented on Linux. I did take a look at GnuStep Services, but is it the way someone would have done, if starting from a clean slate ? Powershell has a "pipeline" as well which works at object level. Again, it may not be the same thing as pipes or services implementation-wise, but it is conceptually relevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Glad they chose 'pipe' over 'hose'.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To "massage data" sounds a bit like what some scientists do whenever they don't get the results they expect.

Kinda funny concept anyway...

<comment><USER13> You've attributed one connotation (probably the one most known to public due to media reporting of scientist malfeasance) to the phrase "massage data". Which actually has the more general meaning of to manipulate, to process data. Perhaps to get the data into different format, or to extract just the rows/columns/bits that are of interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> A drawback of English not being my native language, most probably. :) Thanks for your clarification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Maybe some folks here with a better understanding of pipes than myself can help me figure out how to do the following using pipes and not a temporary file. I need a minimalist method to format a couple of email headers, append an email body, then send that email with `msmtp`. This is all running on a small embedded linux system with some additional packages bolted on. This will be mailing the status updates from my backup server to myself. Partly I'm doing this because I don't want to run a full-blown mail user agent, and partly I'm just curious how concise it can be :)

The requirement is that this be an executable script which can take any number of command-line arguments describing email headers, and which receives the body of an email on STDIN. I think this can all be done via pipes but I'm not entirely sure how - the trick is that the output of the program over STDOUT needs to be the concatenation of formatted command-line arguments plus the contents of STDIN. I had difficulty figuring out how to have two different commands both send output, in order, to the STDIN of `msmtp -t`. msmtp is configured to send email via a Google Apps account.

Here's what I'm using at the moment. It works but I think it could be more elegant and UNIXY without the temporary file.

      #!/bin/sh
      T=`/opt/bin/mktemp`                         # create a temporary file
      echo -e "From:$1\nTo:$2\nSubject:$3\n" > $T # format command-line args into the file
      cat <&0 >>$T                                # append STDIN to the file
      msmtp -t <$T                                # mail the file (-t parses the smtp recipient from the email headers)
      rm $T                                       # delete the file

      # used as follows:
      #/usr/local/bin/minimail "firstname.lastname@example.com" "email@example.com" "Subject of the Email" <body.txt

Any ideas?

<comment><USER15>
        (echo;cat)|msmtp

But yeah, stackoverflow.com

<comment><USER14> That works perfectly. Thank you.

Sorry for the noise.</comment></comment></comment>


IEmpire: Apple's Sordid Business Practices Are Even Worse Than You Think - <AUTHOR> http://www.alternet.org/story/154043/iempire:_apple%27s_sordid_business_practices_are_even_worse_than_you_think/?page=entire

<comment><USER2> I own several Apple products and reading this article makes me feel awful that I'm supporting such practices in China. Unfortunately Apple is not the only hardware company that is guilty.

Perhaps the next movement will be in "Fair Trade Computing." Fair wage and labor practices for workers. While I am a cheapskate, I would support buying products that followed this ethos.

Much like our food, Americans (and maybe the world?) need to worry more about where things come from and the true cost of the goods we consume.

<comment><USER3> The Chinese conscript students into internship at their electronics factories? Not nice. Not Apple's fault.

How come this blistering expose of Chinese labor practices didn't blame Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Asus, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Intel, I.B.M., Lenovo, Microsoft, Motorola, Netgear, Nintendo, Nokia, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Sony or Vizio? It's so attention-grabbing to blame Apple, even though, as far as I know, Apple is the only one among these companies to have even expressed concern about these issues.

Here's the real problem: The Chinese government is determined to dominate electronics manufacture and, as the article illustrates, is willing to go to what we would consider outlandish lengths to succeed. Don't fool yourself that low labor costs is the only reason companies source from China. Chinese companies, Foxconn included, are second to none in electronics expertise and manufacturing quality. That's why virtually every well-known brand is built there. Fix that and maybe consumers would pay a little more for more expensive labor. Maybe not. Don't fix that and there's really no question: no consumer will pay more for crappy products.</comment></comment>


On being a girl in computer science - a confession - <AUTHOR> http://zanytomato.tumblr.com/post/44978912674/on-being-a-girl-in-computer-science-a-confession <comment><USER4> I think these sorts of articles are asking the wrong question when they ask "why aren't there more women in CS?" or "how can we get more women in CS?"

Instead the question should be (IMHO) "are there any barriers to entry for women in CS?"

I suspect the opinion people have on this issue largely mirrors their view on affirmative action. Some believe in a meritocracy that is blind to race, age and gender. They believe that any discrimination for one group is discrimination against another (which, incidentally, is axiomatically true). Many in this camp believe that lowering standards for one group encourages a perception that _any_ member of that group did less to get where they are (correct or not).

The other side believe that an artificial environment needs to be created to correct an imbalance. Rooted in this principle there is often a belief that this situation only exists because of artificially created and perpetuated gender roles.

Personally I believe that gender imbalance in this (and other) professions is only indirectly related to gender.

In this post as one data point, the author notes that she felt socially isolated from other girls. The question then is: is this because she didn't share the same interests as her peers or did she develop separate interests because of this social isolation? I suspect the answer is a little of both.

The stereotype of an engineer is that of a judgmental introvert, two traits that tend to negatively correlate with having many social connections. Of course this stereotype isn't universal but we're talking about patterns in a large group, not specific individuals. If such personality traits are causative (rather than simply being correlated) in choosing CS as a career, you then need to ask if there is a gender basis for these traits? Males and females form very different social structures when left to their own devices.

For me, I'm not sure how productive all this gender hand-wringing really is.

<comment><USER5> > For me, I'm not sure how productive all this gender hand-wringing really is.

Demographic dramatically over-represented in government, corporate boards, startup founders, growth industries, etc unconcerned about status quo.

And there's the problem.

<comment> barry-cotter die younger, less socially connected, more likely to go bankrupt, more likely to be the victim of a violent crime, more likely to commit suicide, less likely to finish all levels of education, more likely to be incarcerated.

And there's the problem.

<comment><USER6> All the examples you cite are relevant to an individual; they do not stop the gender as a whole exerting their voice in halls of power.

(You also end up mixing a lot of other weird demographic data in there that could be caused by existing entrenched gender roles, e.g. women on the whole tend to live longer because most militaries in the world don't have women soldiers!)

Women, as a gender, don't get as much of a say in how things are run as men. That's something that we all suffer for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you look at the real pioneers of computer science, people like Turing and Babbage, two women jump right off the page: Ada Byron and Grace Hopper. Women _belong_ in CS, because it _belongs_ to them. They were there at the start, just as much as the men.

As a 55-year-old man, I'm pretty sure I've experienced discrimination because of my age. Situations where people couldn't see beyond the wrinkles and gray hair and see the experience and skills. I know the same thing happens to women too, because they are different from the vision of an ideal employee the employer had in mind. I don't think women managers are immune to this either. I've worked in two departments headed by a woman who made all the hiring decisions and the entire team they hired was men. There are definitely barriers.

But I agree with the author that 'women in CS' programs aren't the answer. Success is. Each generation of CS pioneers includes a few more women with passion and intellect like Hopper or Bryon that cannot be ignored, and they will make it a lot easier for equally qualified women in subsequent generations, because when all is said and done, what you can do ultimately beats who you are in this field.

<comment><USER8> what if "woman in CS" programs can help to get woman with intellect and passion into CS?

<comment><USER9> People who work in CS are known to work with scientific methods. "What if" is simply not enough.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

We, that is people who work in the field of computer science, need to demand more than guesses and beliefs when dealing with "solutions" to gender inequality. If someone has an ideas on how to improve the community and industry, those ideas need to be first tested and validated using the scientific method. Testing in Social studies are not a new concept, so we already got the tools we need.

If "woman in CS" programs can help to get women with intellect and passion into CS, it should be testable. Do that first, and then argue for it use when there is data backing it up.

<comment><USER10> In order to be testable there need to be a statistically significant number of women in CS programs so I assume from your comment that you arguing for them.

Or are you saying that these programs need to scientifically prove their value before existing in order to exist?

<comment><USER11> >Or are you saying that these programs need to scientifically prove their value before existing in order to exist?

Your wording is disingenuous. It is possible to run a case study and study on a limited scale a program that would be deployed at a much larger scale.

Your statement implies the idea is tautologically false, which it is not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with this type of the thinking is the same thing you see when it comes to racism in general: "If we just stop mentioning it, it will go away", "programs to counter racism are racist", etc. Not talking about racism/sexism etc will not make it go away. Kids are very perceptive, they notice the apparent differences in acceptable behavior very early on; they are internalizing it subconsciously whether we bring it up or not. The only way to compensate is to tackle it head-on. This means defining it, explaining why its wrong, and taking steps to mitigate its effects. Girl-centric CS activities are an appropriate way of counteracting these pervasive gender stereotypes. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

<comment><USER13> I don't think that translates. Racism is hatred based on race. Hatred is something that needs to be addressed more directly because it won't go away on its own. Isn't the gender imbalance in tech something that is self- perpetuating the more visible it is? If it were closed, would it stay closed?

<comment><USER14> Racism is not about hate. That is only the most extreme form and hardly the most damaging kind (in our society; there's always genocide). Racism is the differentiation (discrimination) of people by race: assuming a black guy will not be into d&d. Even if it is statistically true, such stereotypes are damaging in two ways: (1) we wont invite him for a dnd session even if he would've loved it; and (2) the same person would probably have declined anyway even though he would've liked it.

Discrimination impedes freedom in many ways. Legally, most obstacles have been removed. We need to change peoples/our preconceptions of others as well as ourselves.

Emancipation requires changing our habits. Learning something new, especially when it goes against established patterns, is achieved most effectively when the new is made explitit and even exaggerated.

I think GP is spot on. The gender imbalance is visible even if we pretend it doesn't exist. The only way to change it, is to force it. That will be damn hard and totally worth it.

<comment><USER15> I would say that racism is about hate, ignorance, and creating systematic barriers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Women are considered a minority group; yet, white women still retain the privilege of being white. It sounds like the essay echoes the sentiment of being privileged and not wanting to be sub-grouped. I've noticed that some white friends didn't consider themselves to belong to any special "ethnic group" - they considered themselves to be "normal".

The point of the Civil Rights movement, the Voting Rights Act, and implementation of affirmative action policies was that hatred and bigotry gave way to the people creating barriers that prevented minorities from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Affirmative action is needed because the impact of centuries of systemic discrimination cannot be undone in just one generation.

The solution to ending racism, homophobia, and sexism cannot be to ignore these evils. Shine a light on them.

<comment><USER16> Is racism just about white privilege, though? In America, ethnic Indians and east Asians outperform all other ethnic groups on a host of metrics - income, criminality, education, and etc. Isn't there a huge Asian privilege in America that nobody is talking about? Why don't we talk about the Asian/White achievement gap?

<comment><USER15> This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Asian Americans have never systematically disenfranchised white Americans.

However, you bring up some interesting points but that I have a couple of issues with including probationary whiteness, survivor-ship bias, and performance vs. access. I don't think Asian Americans had to drink from the "colored" fountain. It's easier to win the game if you are allowed to play. In many cases, Asians are considered probationary white so should we be talking about a White/White achievement gap?

Children of immigrants are highly motivated to achieve by parents who selected to come to the US. The folks that immigrate were motivated enough to come here and be successful. This is the essence of survivor-ship bias.

There was a study a couple years ago that showed that having an black-sounding name on your resume lead to fewer callbacks. You have a better shot at batting .300 if you are allowed to pick up a bat.

<comment><USER16> Japanese and Chinese Americans have faced lots of historical obstacles, from anti-miscegenation laws to internment camps. Ever hear of the Chinese Exclusion Act? They still face a lot of stereotypes. There's a big culture and language divide between the cultures of South/East Asia and those of Europeans. I don't buy the idea that they are "probationary whites".

They just happen to be really, really good at what they do, on average, to the point where they outperform whites in majority-white nations. And in doing so, they falsify the hypothesis that achievement gaps are caused solely by majority-group racism.

Asians blow whites out of the water on SAT, MCAT, IQ, and other tests of achievement, aptitude, and ability. Even if there was a bias against asian names in the market place, Asians would probably overcome it just by being too good to ignore.

It's really hard for me to square leftist theories of racism with the data. To be successful in America, the best thing you can do is be born to Indian parents[1].

It is interesting that you mention immigrants. African immigrants to America are a high-achieving group, outperforming whites in income. So they manage to beat the stereotypes while African-Americans do not.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income)

<comment><USER17> >African immigrants to America are a high-achieving group, outperforming whites in income. So they manage to beat the stereotypes while African- Americans do not.

Isn't that an argument FOR survivor-ship bias?

How do the ethnic asians that immigrated a century ago stack up against the newly immigrated ones?

<comment><USER16> hmmm, so would you suppose that children of African immigrants (the Obamas of the world) run into the negative stereotypes of our society and start to fall in socioeconomic standing towards the level of African Americans?

<comment><USER17> Suppose is too strong a word. I find the hypothesis worthy of serious consideration though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >I liked it because it was hard, and considered hard. >And I didn't even notice that I was the only female in the >class— a lack of awareness that persisted well into >university.

I took programming classes in high school, and assumed that the hugely skewed gender ratio was just my school being weird. It wasn't until people were surprised/impressed that I was planning to major in CS that I started googling, and discovered that the gender ratio is a thing.

> I simple never fit in with "the girls". > Because girls don't do things that > I like.

I often feel more uncomfortable at women in CS events than just plain CS ones. Partially, it's because the actual activities are less interesting; I'm there because it's "for women", despite the less interesting/ less technical content. Partially, it's because, after 4 years of CS courses, I feel like I'm in the wrong place when more than 35%-ish of the people in a room are female. Partially, it's because I tend to feel more out of place among women. I don't dress like they do - no makeup, unisex tshirts, more interested in coding than parties - and when I'm in a room full of normal women who happen to do CS, I feel more alone than in a group of CS people. If I'm in the group of people who are supposed to be my minority demographic or whatever, and I feel like I _really_ don't fit in with them, then doesn't that mean I don't fit at all?

I tend to like unpopular/strange pieces of programming (sometimes partially because "it [i]s hard, and considered hard"). I'm used to having different technical interests than the CS/tech people I hang out with. I just feel that a lot more when I'm at a women-in-tech event. Either there's a bigger disconnect or I care more deeply that I don't fit. I view it mostly as a personal insecurity, but I really long for the emotional validation of meeting someone who's female, doesn't care about clothes, and has vaguely similar technical/programming interests. Normal CS groups of sufficient size include people who fit on everything but gender; in my experience, women-in-cs groups provide examples that match only on gender.

<comment><USER19> I don't wear unisex t-shirts. They tend to "gap" and just hang all wrong on me. Makeup? Eh. It depends. More interested in coding than parties? Nope. I'd much rather be at a party, assuming party means "a group of friends having food and drinks, talking and laughing late into the night". People are far more interesting than these computers.

I don't like "because it's there" as a reason to do something. You expressed it as "it is hard and considered hard", but I think it's the same basic idea. I build things because I need the result to solve a problem of mine, or a problem for someone I care about.

Where does that leave me? I don't know. I hope these things wouldn't exclude me from a conversation you were having at a conference.

<comment><USER18> I'm kind of confused by your last sentence about being excluded from a conversation.

My points of similarity were about wanting to find someone with this arbitrary, absurd set of surface-level similarities because it would make me feel less different/unique. You don't fit them, which is totally cool, and really doesn't mean anything. Your post sounded a little bit defensive (as I read it), and I'm sorry if I made you feel excluded or anything by listing properties that we happen to differ on.

I guess we just disagree on reasons to do things. The process of solving problems tends to be what interests me, more than the final product. Needing the solution is a good way to make sure a project actually gets finished, but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me. If a tool/language/etc is considered hard, then I want to use it because that might mean it's more powerful or it's mind-expanding in some way (for the right kind of hard). I wouldn't phrase it as "because it's there", but I guess that's also reasonable.

<comment><USER12> > but its the process of solving/building that is more interesting to me.

I'm with you on that one. I got into programming because I saw it as solving problems distilled down to its purest form. Whether the result of what I'm working on is interesting or useful in its own right was a distant concern. Its the process of exercising your creative capacity and coming up with fresh insights that motivates me (coming up with a novel elegant solution is better than any drug).

I often feel out of place on HN because of the huge focus on thing that's being built, rather than the process itself. It's completely foreign to me to think of the programming aspect as a means to an end. But I see that sentiment around here all the time. Just goes to show that there are many reasons to get into CS. Unfortunately those that do it for the sheer enjoyment of solving problems (whether useful or the project euler variety) seem to be a dying breed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Similarly, I have to confess I am a little worried about this with my daughter. It is ridiculously clear that she does not do your stereotypical girl activities already at the age of 3. To the point that some of the boys in her "pre-k" class have actually thought that spiderman was a girl's thing. For the most part, my wife and I both think this is hilarious. And we are fine letting her do whatever she wants.

However, we have been worried that it is obvious she does not fit in with some other girls her age. To the point where it almost seems to bother her. Luckily, it is not a 100% thing. Still a little worrisome to see, though.

<comment><USER21> Sure it will bother her some at some point, but be supportive and give her good options, that's the best you can do! Cannot fix society all the way immediately... but you can give her confidence and courage.

<comment><USER20> :) Thanks! I just do not know how to specifically address that there is nothing wrong with her _or_ the other girls. Basically, it is fairly natural (I think, am I wrong?) to not get along with everyone. It is not a fault on either side, necessarily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This closely aligns with my thoughts on the issue.

While I understand the good intentions behind girl only events, women in CS meetups and girl geek dinners/mentors something about it feels wrong to me. It's like fighting an exclusion problem with just a different type of exclusion and simultaneously reinforcing the divisions they're rallying against.

<comment><USER23> "It's like fighting an exclusion problem with just a different type of exclusion and simultaneously reinforcing the divisions they're rallying against."

In numerous tech offices/companies I've visited in the Bay Area and New York, I've met more foreign born white male programmers than African American male and Hispanic American male programmers put together. And despite the so-called high number of Asian males in CS in the US, I rarely see them in C-level positions in tech companies (say as CTOs) even compared to females. Yet I don't see or read nearly as many articles about initiatives in the tech industry to help any of those minorities increase their participation or break glass ceilings.

And so as a minority, it kind of annoys me that I just get grouped with the so-called dominant segment of 'men' when I feel my and other races are under- represented in different ways. This especially comes out whenever there are tech meetups that are exclusive to women.

<comment><USER24> Start an Asian outreach effort. Get in touch with some Asian CxOs. (I worked for an Asian CxO once. So did everyone at Zappos.)

<comment><USER25> "Binders full of asians"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The attitudes in this thread seem a little disturbing to me. Let me illustrate with a different example:

There are a number of other fields that are consistently dominated by women in the way that programming and CS are by men. Teaching, especially at the elementary-school level and younger, nursing, HR, administrative assistants, and others. Why is there no effort to bring more men into these fields? Is there some "old-girls club" that's keeping the men out? Do we need to set up some affirmative action programs at employers, outreach programs to men in high school and college, men-only nurse clubs, etc? It doesn't happen, because nobody seems to care. Just try and see how much googling it takes to even find out what the actual gender ratios in those professions are. After a little looking around, I found that, according to one article, teaching is 67-86% female, and according to Wikipedia, nursing in the US is 94.6% female (!).

There are a lot of other fields where men are heavily dominant. Firefighters, soldiers, police, etc. I don't see anywhere near the level of pressure to bring women into these fields as there is for CS/Programming.

The whole CS/Programming field is just another field heavily dominated by a particular gender. Why is it different or more special than any of these other fields? Why does this field need specific efforts to address the gender ratio? Why is this a Problem that demands all sorts of high-level money and attention to address?

I have nothing against any person trying to get into any field they care to. Programming can be a tough field, but if a woman, or anybody else, has the interest, brains, and drive, then more power to 'em. Anyone who tells a girl that they shouldn't get into the field because girls can't do it or it isn't feminine is a jerk and should be ignored, and should be sacked if they take action to block her progress.

So the gender ratio in CS/Programming is heavily male-biased. So what? Maybe women just don't tend to be interested in it. I don't see this as a problem that we need to work on solving. Let people do what they want to do, and if that leads to a gender imbalance in some fields, that's okay.

<comment><USER27> Being a male elementary school teacher can be a very dangerous career choice in the era of "stranger danger" and the like.

And I think that the conversation focuses on programming here, but there is a genuine issue with girls being disinterested in STEM careers.

There's a chance that the world is missing out on the next female einstein, because she became a nurse instead of being encouraged to follow her dreams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> My daughter has told me a few times that she might like to program like me but was worried that it was a "boy thing".

I tell her that the computer can't tell you're a girl.

<comment><USER29> So here's the question: How old is your daughter? And where do you suppose she got the idea that programming is "a boy thing"? I suspect that the answers to these questions is a good lead to understanding why women are under- represented among programmers / techies.

<comment><USER28> That actually is _the_ question I've been struggling with. She's only 7 and I've tried to keep her quite insulated from that kind of idea but it seems to just bleed in from all over the place.

Since I've tuned out powerless to stop the bias from getting in, I've started to really think about the best way to help her rise above it.

<comment><USER30> I would answer pop culture, if she's watched any Disney show or movie ever, it immediately shows her exactly what is "acceptable" for a girl to do (Grrr, I hate Disney and that is gonna be the one channel I will never let my children watch, not to say there aren't worse channels but Disney is consistently bad).

Someone (in the HN community) should do an in-depth blog post about how pop culture screws up our children's perceptions of what is appropriate and acceptable for them to reach for.

<comment><USER31> You should watch Disney movies with your kid and discuss them. Ignorance won't stop anything.

<comment><USER32> Why call out Disney for such special treatment. Should he do similar with the Rambo series?

Not watching Disney movies seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the content of Disney movies. There is no shortage of other things to watch.

<comment><USER31> Not watching Disney movies is cultural/social death. Don't do that to your kid.

I'm all for good role models. But bad models are useful to, so the kid knows it's bad behavior, especially when they are likely to run into that culture anyway (as is the case with role models). All the kid will see is that you won't allow them to see what the rest of America has. Any moral message will be secondary. So you might as well ensure that they learn the lessons correctly the first time.

And no, they don't need to see Rambo, but Rambo isn't likely to be relevant to their lives if we're discussing Disney movies. I strongly believe things like Disney are crucial for kids.

-I'm barely recovering from a childhood of only PBS allowed and I feel entirely disconnected from my generation whenever we talk about culture before 2003. All I remember is from watching The News Hour about Bill Clinton having sex and bombing places and reading about nsync on the back of juice boxes. Don't do that, it's not healthy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Hedy Lamarr (for those not familiar, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr>) stands out as a woman who excelled in the "nerdy" aspects as well as the more "feminine" aspects. And she was involved long before it was treated as more mainstream, when her environment was more adherent to social norms than the world of 2013.

How did she break the norms, and why don't we see more women following her example?

<comment><USER34> Not everyone has a strong force of will to go against societal norms. Any recipe for the everyday person is going to be spoiled by "you just need the personality of extraordinary person X"

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > I grew up in a household where there was no particular attention (that I can > recall) given to the fact that as a young woman I could attain whatever > career I wanted—it was just a given.

> I fear that when you say, for example, that "yes, girls can do anything", it > first plants the idea that there is an inequality, before it attempts to > combat this idea.

From your post it looks like you had lots of encouragement from an early age (or at least no great signs of discouragement).

I believe the reason we have women in CS events is to encourage those who have been discouraged already. Women that have been told though movie stereotypes, guidance counselors, and parents that programming is a nerdy boys thing to do need to hear it from us that CS is open to everyone.

IMHO those events are a good idea.

<comment><USER36> She was encouraged to be anything she wanted, not only a "Woman in CS".

It seems like there is more interest in "leveling the playing field" and "balancing the gender ratio" for its own sake than in helping anyone of any gender pursue the career they want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Well, I can't speak from a girl's perspective, but I can tell you about my great aunt, Betty Jennings Bartik, (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bartik>) one of the first female "computers," and original programmers on ENIAC. She passed away a couple of years ago, but she'd be the first to tell OP to suck it up and forge her own path in the world. Aunt Betty didn't take shit from anyone and she made that clear, by her intellect and attitude. And if a smart woman in WW2 can earn the respect of male colleagues, then I'm sure the same can be said of women today. Quit waiting for the red carpet treatment because it ain't coming.

<comment><USER38> Wanting to be treated equally is hardly asking for red carpet treatment.

<comment><USER37> I'm sure my aunt had her own stories about chauvinism, etc. But that didn't stop her from what she wanted to do. And during her time, it was much worse for women. I'm not implying that it's good today, but if she could do it then I'm sure other women can--and I want to see them do it. My point is that she didn't care what other people thought, she forged her own path and became a success. Not so different than anyone else trying to succeed in the world, regardless of their sex.

<comment><USER38> Arguing that one person was able to do it is a slap in the face to those that have tried and failed and did nothing differently. Like anyone's success, it is highly dependent on luck (and this luck is partially someone determining your worth). As it stands, there are still many barriers that need to be broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "What if we just taught our kids about what computers can do, and worked toward a healthy appreciation for how vital computer science is to society and to a successful career, and then left them to decide on their own careers?"

I completely agree. My proposed solution (that would probably work): teach basic cs in middle schools so it becomes as normal as chemistry, biology, physics, math, social studies, and english- that way, kids wouldn't denote the subject as a particularly male or female oriented path and would simply see it as a stepping stone to another possible career. But we would need more knowledgeable teachers...and more teachers in general.

<comment><USER40> I'm not sure your logic follows through - just because something is taught in middle school doesn't make it gender neutral. Most of the subjects you mention have similar gender issues to what is presented here, with similar discussions taking place in related communities.

The problem goes deeper than just introducing the material at an appropriate age.

<comment><USER39> Teaching something to kids at a young age certainly does not make the whole industry gender neutral, but it allows girls and boys to learn something together, lessening the bias that they will learn when older and logically able to understand the gender inequality in any specific industry (and hopefully by the time they are actually that old, the ratio will have lessened). And yes, other industries might be facing the same issues, but the numbers are certainly not as depressing as the ones in CS and CS related fields.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I keep returning to the time Etsy decided that they wanted female engineers (<http://www.themarysue.com/etsy-female-engineers>) and tried to figure out how to find them ([http://firstround.com/article/How-Etsy-Grew-their-Number- of-...](http://firstround.com/article/How-Etsy-Grew-their-Number-of-Female- Engineers-by-500-in-One-Year) \- good summary of their presentation points).

Interesting results; it worked. They did find that women had less industry experience, which made them riskier hires; a self-perpetuating problem, as we all know with the cliched need-experience-to-get-jobs-to-get-experience cycle.

The company was rewarded by taking the risk. The key take-aways are that they not only created an event that targetted women, but they also overcame several other barriers like women not wanting to leave already-safe workplaces (because it's more of a risk if you don't fit in as a woman than as a man) and women not asking for help as much (because if you ask for help, you're more likely to be seen as a failure/fraud) by creating a mentoring, learning environment that catered to women.

This sort of effort appears to be what's needed, even at the post-graduate level, to achieve gender parity in programming work.

I suspect that OP is one of a lucky set of gifted natural engineers who would have found her place in tech (and did) anyway. But, most people aren't natural engineers, and the deck is simply societally stacked against exploring the field as a woman if you don't have a burning innate interest already.

NB: I'm female, and I ended up in programming for mostly mercenary reasons (jerbs! My arts degree wasn't panning out); I never had any "Women in CS" events to point the way, but I did have work experience as an adult with female scientists and engineers, so it felt totally plausible that I could go into engineering myself. That exposure was key. The subfield I'm in now - <USER2> - is one of the few with a lot of female devs, and a community that actively supports us. I've heard a few coworkers express similar misgivings to OP and yet the evidence seems to be that the more we are encouraged to participate, the more we do.

<comment><USER38> Ditto this. I've written about this every time one of these "Oh no, not women- centric events!" threads comes up, but when I was at RailsGirls PDX (aged 21+), the question came up as to if they preferred the girls-only aspect or if they thought it was exclusionary.

Many had faced discrimination in classrooms or at events and felt like they didn't belong. They were much more excited and eager to participate in something where they knew they wouldn't be judged by something as petty as their gender, and many were encouraged by male peers to be there. I went because I knew it would be friendlier, both socially and in approach, than other events I'd been to. I don't know what the total was, but not everyone that applied was even able to attend. From what I've read, this is the case across all of their events, so if the interest is continually there, how can we possibly say it doesn't work or that it's wrong?

The blog title itself is unhelpful to the debate; each woman has their own individual experiences as a girl in this industry. Using one's singular experience to downplay a movement that could become much bigger than itself is irresponsible. Unfortunately, those who believe these types of events are active segregation/unfair encouragement are feeling even more validated by this post because it was written by a woman, despite the fact that she cannot speak on behalf of an entire gender and the personal experiences therein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Female-only programming events and CS groups are like female-only gyms, they provide a more low-pressure environment to gain confidence and skills. It's a great place for a beginner to be turned on to a rewarding and fun activity/profession and receive mentorship from more experienced women. It's fairly natural for people that share similar characteristics and experiences to band together to form support groups.

The author is an atypical female, so she doesn't see the need for such groups. She would be a techie regardless. But I expect that the gender ratio in CS would be worse than it is if these groups did not exist.

Software is only growing in importance. I would guess that these groups do a good job at drawing highly talented people into the industry. That's important for the future of software. If these efforts at outreach are effective, then I am grateful for all the talented future coworkers that I gain from them.

As a member of the majority, it is easy to feel devalued by special events for every subgroup who is not like us. And when members of the majority speak up about it, their concerns are considered illegitimate and even evil. I think it would benefit everybody if we were all a little more open and less judgmental.

</comment><comment><USER43> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA> I think this video, even though referring to the general sciences instead of CS alone demonstrates the issue as clearly as it is cringe worthy.

<comment><USER44> Today I learned it is possible to do fan service badly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> At my university, the drop-out rate was high enough for everyone as it was. The CS department held a few couple of social gatherings for the women there - dinners and such - and it really boosted morale amongst the people there, some of whom were thinking about dropping out.

It's also worth keeping in mind that there are universities that don't have a dorm culture, which makes it even more important to create a social support system.

Please consider what there is to gain - and feel free to weigh it against whatever there may be to lose - before discounting the idea of such a concept.

</comment><comment><USER46> I wonder what Grace Hopper would say about this gender issue? Oh wait, she was too busy BEING an example of female computer science excellence rather than talking about it over and over. She apparently didn't need a "women's" group or having the barrier of entry lowered for her to succeed. As a result, she has the respect of pretty much any man in computer science, including me. I'll never respect anyone who carves out gender clubs and makes special rules for themselves. It's disgusting when men do it, but just as bad when women do it.

</comment><comment><USER47> >> If we start young, really young, and simply presented all careers as gender/race/etc-neutral, and didn't spend any energy defining special groups, what would happen?

What would happen is that even though you were no longer consciously creating the groups, they already exist in reality because of consciously or unconsciously sexist people. What would happen is that everything would remain the same, or get worse.

That said, I enjoyed the article. I think I would teach people to learn to stand to be different, and I would teach groups of people to be accepting of those that are different.

The problem isn't that groups are separated, it is that people don't feel safe being the only female individual in a male-dominated group, and that in many cases they are right to feel like this as they do not pass all of the in-group tests [0]. This is just human nature and it probably can't be changed - <USER3> just be what feels right for you, and try to respect other people's right to be what they want to be.

Reality is, this is probably the only possible solution: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ingroup_identity>

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism>

edit; I realise I've just synced with your view, but a little more depth here. Things won't just fix themselves because you choose to ignore them.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is an excellent viewpoint. I am curious how the youngest generations of today are being introduced to computer science as technology becomes more and more ubiquitous. Clearly there are tons of "Women in CS" programs and, generally, I think they are making a good impact for those who may already feel alienated. But a lot more study needs to go into why gender ratios are really so skewed and what root causes can be properly addressed.

</comment><comment><USER49> Thanks for writing this article!

There's a lot here that seems to apply to equality in general, not just gender equality.

I have two daughters, bi-racial. I struggle with what I think the ideal world should look like and what our actual world needs to look like, today. For example, if there were not a historic misbelief that women are not good at math, there would be no reason to go out of our way to make women only events. But it happened, and it lingers. So I wonder -- how many women have a story about how these women-targeted events helped to open some doors? Def seems like we've swung too far sometimes, but what's the right middle ground?

At home I go for the ideal. My wife and I don't bring up race and gender. We don't attach it to things. My daughters are still under 4, so this is easy. I wouldn't want to say, "girls can do it, too" because I agree with the author -- the effect would be opposite of the intended one. But some day, there eyes will be opened to all those ignorant ideas, and the imperfect "bandaids" that we have. I mean, hell, they already get party bags that are "for girls, not the boy ones." They are already being influenced in ways they can't comprehend.

</comment><comment><USER50> Excelent content, horrible typography. To better read it : <http://www.readability.com/apps>

</comment><comment><USER51> My initial reaction to these types of observations about sexism/racism is to agree with the underlying sentiment of the post: give a completely blank stare and say in all seriousness "why wouldn't it be okay for a girl to be a programmer? What does that have to do with anything? Do what you love, and screw everyone else"

Then, I remember that for centuries people have been actively attempting to be dicks to other people that aren't "like them" and exclude, harass, and demean other people for no other reason than they are afraid that giving dignity to someone else somehow takes it from themselves. It's a thing, and it happens – way more than you might think. And ignoring that it ever happens will not make it go away. In fact ignoring it will only continue to empower those that have the power to abuse it.

So, as much as my gut wants to say that stuff like "women in cs" meetings are unnecessary, I know that they are _very_ necessary. If only as a reminder to everyone else "there is still a problem, so remember: don't be a dick"

If only it were that simple of a problem to solve.

</comment><comment><USER52> I've been thinking that I am very much contributing to the divide as well, and was too ashamed to say it out loud. So, thanks for the post.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'll be more interested in hearing the opinions of women who didn't have access to a TI99/4A at age five on the need for "women in CS" programs. The questions are: Are there women who, under different circumstances when growing up, would have pursued a career in CS and would like to do so now that they're adults? How do you make it possible for these women to achieve their goals and in the process improve gender balance in the software industry?

Tech blog posts/comments and Hacker News being what they are, the opinions I've read have been from the tech-privileged - men and women. I would really like to hear from the tech-unprivileged, particularly those women that discovered computer programming too late in life to make a career of it without access to some sort of special program.

We should not pretend that all individuals are born with equal access to technology - or really equal access to anything. I also have a problem with this idea that writing computer programs is some highly technical process that only a small fraction of the world's population is capable of. Yes, it comes more naturally to some of us. But many computer programmers are programmers today because they had access to a computer programming course in high school, or they had parents or mentors or peers who encouraged them to start programming. It all starts with access - interest, focus, ambition, motivation, intellect etc are determining factors on career trajectories but these all come later, after access has been granted.

If Formula 1 teams started signing female drivers en masse, the likelihood of one of them being a Saudi would be effectively zero. I apologize, that's hardly a fair analogy, but it underscores my point that it all boils down to access. If one of those hypothetical female drivers happened to be a Saudi princess, raised in Belgium with access to Spa in the off-season and Michael Schumacher's 1994 championship-winning Benetton, and she couldn't see why other women needed special training programs, why I wouldn't know what to make of that. Again, I agree, not a fair analogy.

</comment><comment><USER54> One thing I found as an educator of technology in higher education was that many girls/women didn't know they would like it. During the first week of the academic year I had the unusual opportunity to teach an introduction class to a mixed group of arts and technology majors. After a couple of hours I actually converted a few young ladies to the technology course. It seemed to be about re-enforcing that the technology was there, it was cool and it would give you a secure future.

</comment><comment><USER55> Women are naturally going to be more attracted to software development as a career as time goes on, because everyone is realizing it's a lucrative career that's becoming more and more mainstream and even--dare I say--cool. It's one of the few career options left with high pay and low unemployment. It used to be assumed that only geeks could understand how to do it, but that isn't the case anymore. Things are changing.

</comment><comment><USER56> Programming/Computer Science is a boy's club. This boy's club will perpetuate itself just like other boy's clubs historically. It will be integrated just like other boy's clubs have been: by a few talented and determined women who pave the way for others to follow. I agree with the author, in that the model to follow is closer to piloting than it is to sports.

EDIT: To its credit CS is much further along than NASCAR.

<comment><USER57> Except that it is a "club" with absolutely zero obligatory social interaction. I'm self-taught via the internet. On many remote projects, I see neither my clients nor any coworkers for months. I don't care about meet-ups or conferences. It is really hard to understand what is making it harder for women to do a job like mine. (My guess is that the education <15y/o makes all the difference, because that's when my male programmer friends started being interested in it.)

Now if you are talking about programming _communities_ , then I guess I agree. But the bigger question is why so few women are interested in programming in the first place.

<comment><USER43> "U a gurl on ze interwebs? I call le fake". Maybe it's that kind of attitude. I find it intresting that "No girls on the internet" originally meant "No gender bias on the internet", but the meaning was perverted. But statements like that (I sometimes make them myself in jest, but you never know how the opposite side will interpret it),they just add to the exclusion of girls in programming.

<comment><USER58> That attitude/meme exists because a large portion of people who _go out of their way to appear female_ on the internet are actually male.

5 years ago it was an extremely easy way to get free stuff in games.

If you're representing yourself as a girl online, people will assume you're doing that specifically to get preferential treatment - of course stereotypes like that aren't universally true, but enough people do that to reflect negatively on anyone else.

edit: this is mostly about gamers.

<comment><USER43> But then gaming is one of the main ways kids get hooked on computers, and then decide they might want to try out Computer Science. I remember how I was playing Anno 1602 on my Windows 95 machine when I was 8, and how that sooner or later influenced me to start programming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This line of thinking is well documented. It is referred to as stereotype threat. There have been some excellent studies done with the most profound being around the female math stereotype and the GRE.

<http://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/definition.html>

</comment><comment><USER60> There are no girls in computer science, just like there are no boys in computer science.

There are however, _women_ in computer science.

This is part of the problem, women are not children, girls are and society sadly enforces this.

Think of how strange a title would be if someone talked about "being a boy in computer science".

<comment><USER17> Bad boy. Playboy. Home boy. "Give em hell boys"

I agree that using girl in place of woman is more common though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> @PLT_Zizek the platitude that male sexism is keeping women from entering CS only reinforces the notion that the field belongs to men by default

<https://twitter.com/PLT_Zizek/status/212662401525481472>

<comment><USER62> So what's a good solution? Sounds like a snappy idea with no meat.

<comment><USER61> It's a parody Twitter account.

<comment><USER24> Humor, not parody.

<comment><USER63> No, it's pretty clearly a parody of Slavoj Zizek with a PLT focus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Maybe someone mentioned this but what if the reason more women don't go into CS/programming is more to do with discrimination from other _women_ and not men? Perhaps women feel they won't be considered 'womanly' as defined by females?

</comment><comment><USER65> This was a very refreshing change to read from the normal articles which all concentrate on "how to get more women into CS". I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that all these events and questions are just so backwards.

</comment><comment><USER66> This question is important but apparently quite challenging. For an answer, we can pick from three -- yes, no, and maybe. After too much contact with that question, I fervently urge nearly everyone for now to settle on the third answer, maybe.

Why? Apparently what we are dealing with is not simple. And, I can assure you with no doubt at all, if we try solutions that are wrong, then we can do some harm. We should keep in mind the rule, "First, do no harm.".

Why not simple? Boys and girls, men and women, via nature and/or nurture "deserve equal respect as persons but are not the same" (E. Fromm, 'The Art of Loving'). My experience is that he was correct and made if anything an understatement. I fervently urge nearly everyone to keep in front of their mind the point "not the same" and add to that that we don't know nearly enough to be clear on the differences or even if they are due to nature, nurture, socialization, discrimination, stereotypes, ingrained traditions, or what. We just do not know.

For a short, interim answer, may I suggest that we work hard to ensure the same opportunities but not to count on the same outcomes.

Did I mention, boys and girls, men and women, are different and we don't how different or the causes. We just don't know. Moreover, finding the causes and being clear on the differences takes us into fields of social science. Gotta tell you, those fields are super tough places to do solid science. There's no Newton's second law, Newton's law of gravity, conservation of energy, Maxwell's equations, E = mc^2, quantum mechanics, standard model, etc. There's nothing like engineering, etc. Some bright people have worked hard in social science, and we are still waiting for Newton like results.

Did I mention, "First do no harm"? Maybe I should also mention, "It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature.".

Now, don't let any young girls read this because it might cause them to give up trying to be a small version of Daddy and send them back to trying to be a small version of Mommy and sugar and spice and everything nice good at eliciting protective emotions from Daddy with fantastic verbal and social skills, with unbelievable ability to perceive and manipulate the emotions of others.

I will flip this over: How many of you male nerds believe it was just socialization or tradition that kept you from being as good as the little goody goody girls in the fourth grade at spelling, languages, clerical accuracy in arithmetic, neatness in your handwriting, playground gymnastics, reading comprehension, especially of fiction, drawing and painting, rote memorization, social skills in groups, understanding what the teacher wanted and pleasing the teacher, etc.?

</comment><comment><USER67> I'll just jump the shark. I feel sick and irritated today, so I won't pretend political correctness.

Fuck this feminist, sexist shit.

First, I am the most orderly developer you could ever meet. My desk is absolutely clean. Everything has a well defined technical purpose there. Whenever I leave, those purposes cease to exist so I eagerly remove or put away those objects. I could walk in any day, pick up my desktop and get seated anywhere else.

"computer games, science-fiction memorabilia and junk food"?! Fuck that, who cares about that shit anyway? I might have a clean mug, but I ain't never have no fucking plant. How could I be the nit-picking detail-obsessing code freak I am if I was careless with my physical environment in the functional domain? (I don't give a shit about aesthetics, most of the time.) Some of my colleagues' desks seem to be covered with pig shit, and I don't cease chiding them for it.

I treat my female coworkers with respect, I politely discuss technical stuff with them if they feel like. I do make sexist jokes if I was able to get to know them sufficiently before, like any healthy male. They mostly laugh and if they don't, I apologize and tune it down. They don't refrain from spicy topics, we even discuss that kind. My wife's male coworkers behave the same way and I have no problem with that. American overdriven political correctness shall get the fuck off my lawn.

"Missing out on best career opportunities?" Well, concentrate on the fucking task at hand, not irrelevant details. Suppose I'd like to work in a fuckin' bakery but hate that the clothes are white (which doesn't mean in the least that they are clean). So who will start a crusade for me? If the circumstances of your otherwise coveted dream-job are accidental, try to change them. If they are intrinsic, live with them or leave.

I was never hostile towards women in IT. Women consider sexist jokes repugnant in conference presentations? Well, I don't go to no fucking conference, because I hate to travel, I hate to spend money, I hate the crowd. Networking is a lie if you don't work with your peers on actual projects for longer times. Presentations are slow, linear, non-searchable. Give me a fucking transcript, post it to reddit, and I'm happy. Can't recommend anything else to women either.

In my college class we had this beautiful girl with huge boobs. She was smarter than any guy in the whole class. Did we envy her? Did we hate her? Hell no. We respected her and we constantly tried to bring her in discussions for her insights. Did we talk about her body among ourselves? Hell yes, we're no monks!

The fact is, most girls cannot not care about stuff that's irrelevant in computer science / software engineering, and also lack the necessary attention to detail. They are simply not interested in it. Guess what, they have no place here, just like I could never be a historian or translator or lawyer or doctor, because I hate meeting new people. I'm not "enforcing" this or some shit like that, I simply accept that most girls are like this for whatever reason and I'm not trying to force them into IT. I'd rather be happy if some guys left software development. (Yeah, yeah, I'm conflating IT with compsci / sweng, who cares now.)

I practically don't shave, but I'm clean. I never ever stink. I'm not attractive to women I guess, but I don't give a flying fuck. I've got a beautiful, intelligent, loving wife; I don't need to pretend. I wear sandals with socks because shoes are much too warm in the summer, and without socks I sweat like a pig. Don't like it? Have a good laugh; I don't care. I put on (clean) clothing items that are on the top of the respective stacks in my wardrobe. Are you a female who'd like to work as a software developer but you feel you cannot work with me because of my inconsistent clothing? Be a fucking fashion model, then. I never treat, I never even feel an urge to treat female colleagues negatively because they aren't slender, young, or clothe "gray".

There is no problem with girls in IT. They're mostly not here because they don't want to. Pick any female-dominated non-sex-worker job. Yay, who is protecting the poor shunned males? American media is blowing this shit out of proportion again. (Or if the surveys are right, then american girls are out of their minds, which might be true anyways, with requiring an expensive as hell diamond ring for wedding, or so I read. WHAT THE FUCK?!)

The whole issue is being overcompensated now. On some technical forum I've seen somebody ask for advice on whatever. Another user replied with a link to women.debian.org. What the fuck? Do we have "men.debian.org"? If you're no different wrt. technical matters, then you need no different website. If you need different treatment, then don't be surprised if you're treated differently.

I'm tired of this shit.

<comment><USER68> Defensive much? You might want to actually read the article before you write a post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I agree with everything she had to say.

</comment><comment><USER69> This is the standard argument against affirmative action as well. Of course affirmative action is more about addressing pay inequality and discriminatory hiring practices, while the focus of this post is more around changing cultural attitudes toward certain activities. Is it possible to separate the two? That is, to have laws in place which will address the historical wrongs while simultaneously building a culture of inclusion?

And of course, the argument for continuing to do this inclusive workshop bullshit (you can tell I'm sympathetic to the author's point), is that while the gender bias persists active effort must be taken against it. So, how do you know when you're done? And, how do you measure your progress? No one answers these questions.

<comment><USER45> Affirmative action carries the connotation of something happening at the expense of someone else (positive discrimination in a zero-sum system), so I think it does a disservice to the side in favour of women-only events to use that analogy.

The article makes it sound like there's some terrible cost to doing these events, and I just these factors are exaggerated and the positive aspects ignored entirely.

Everything has trade-offs, and to discount women-only events without mentioning any of the advantages makes it sound more like an excuse to avoid events than an argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I agree with the author about the questionable nature of women-focused events.

Here's why:

Do girl-only schools produce more scientists, mathematicians, or programmers? That's the vital bit of research people need to know. Some research _suggests_ that they boost test scores in those subjects, but _do they change career outcomes_?

It doesn't look like it:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single- sex_education#Effects_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single- sex_education#Effects_of_single-sex_education)

The effects of all-girls schooling only seems to improve schooling-related effects, e.g. "More homework completed" and "More enjoyment of school."

And then there is the very problem of stereotype threat:

[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rl...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=stereotype+threat+girls&oq=stereotype+threat+girls&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30.7108.7590.0.7722.214.171.124.18.104.22.168.379.3j1.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.serp.TEhrGrVSBvo)

Far be it from me to tell people not to get together in whatever clique-y group they like, but what gets me is that _women and men assume that because I have breasts, I agree with their viewpoints_.

Like the OP, I never really connected with girls when I was young and I was anti-girly stuff. This, I got over. I learned that it's just as idiotic to (de)value somebody for hating makeup as it is to (de)value somebody for loving it. I have friends of all kinds now and respect that everybody is different.

But my worldviews are not shared by most women (or vice versa). And the most sexist things that have happened to me have been originated by other women who assumed I was like them. I have been cited for other people's agendas (which I disagree with), had my opinions devalued, I've been called sexist, I have been attacked, I have been told my experiences and viewpoint are "wrong," etc. etc.

This doesn't do anything worse to _me_ than annoy me, but I've seen it really hurt women and men who "give more fucks" than I do.

I understand that people are (mostly) trying to do good things with the women- only and women-focused stuff. But they are creating stereotypes of their own, sexism of a different flavor. Any kind of division based on demographics is going to create antagonism.

This is human nature. It can't be helped. But if they can't bear to discuss it, and admit it, they are no better than the men they claim are sexist.

And I know some troglodytes are going to take this as an attack (it's not), or a reason to ignore women (it's not), but blah blah blah it's not for them and it's not as if they need more ammunition because they invent their own reality anyway.

This post is for you reasonable people who are organizing or thinking about organizing women-focused events. Question whether the research supports your beliefs. Spot the bias in yourselves and be respectful.

PS — if I have a daughter, I will tell her "YOU can do anything… if you are willing to be smart, and work your tail off when other people slack." And if I have a son, I will tell him "YOU can do anything… if you are willing to be smart, and work your tail off when other people slack." Because why would you use a label based on an accident of birth -- "boys" can, "girls" can -- instead of the most personal word in anyone's life -- you? How weird is it to teach kids to identify with their label, how weird is it that importance advice isn't aimed at them directly but instead at 51% of the world population?

</comment><comment><USER71> IMHO Women are doing great in CS. They are not doing great in 20 hs/day crazy devops/IT work that nowadays passes for CS, that only men from 20-30 can endure. Edit: Right, women also can physically endure the developer death march, it's just they don't want to. And I don't blame them.

<comment><USER72> s/can/want to/;

When it comes to "going to war" for some cause, men are very programmable, especially when we're young.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73>
       1. What's the CS gender ratio? Assuming it's bad...
       2. Is it bad because anyone is actively discouraging girls?
       3. Is it bad because girls just tend not to like it?

This post assumes #1, undermines those who claim #2 (anecdotally), and reenforces #3.

And I find this very, very easy to believe.

Computer science is an unusually unforgiving discipline, and it takes an odd combination of arrogance and masochism to get through it. The arrogance is a craving for the kind of exceptionalism that any wannabe astronaut (the author and myself included, of course) understands quite well. By being a girl in CS the OP got a double-dose of exceptionalism: she was mastering something hard, and she was unique. (That other girl in CS class...grrr!)

Anyway, the punchline is that we should be aware of #2 and keep a lid on that, but recognize at least the possibility that we're fighting nature here, and that #3 may have a grain of truth. We are all arrogant masochists together, no matter our race, creed, or gender!

<comment><USER74> _"Computer science is an unusually unforgiving discipline, and it takes an odd combination of arrogance and masochism to get through it."_

That's just a gigantic load of horseshit, and the inference that women don't go into CS because it's hard is insulting to women.

There are more women in physics than in CS. Is that a more forgiving discipline? How about biochemistry, or cell biology? Both are getting near parity, even at the graduate level. And hey, let's not worry about medicine, or law...both of which are insanely "masochistic", but attract females in droves. (Two seconds of googling tells me that medicine is basically 50/50, and law is close to it, with some schools having more women than men).

Women are just as desirous and capable as men when it comes to pursuing "unforgiving" careers. And there's no way that CS is more demanding or masochistic than, say, medicine (get back to me when every CS grad has to pull 48-hour residency shifts, and is entrusted with responsibilities that can kill people).

<comment><USER73> Physics solutions can be get partial credit, according to the proclivities of the grader. So yes, it's more forgiving (and I say this as a person with a BS in physics.) I would argue that even medicine is more forgiving, since a) most mistakes do not result in immediate death, and b) malpractice insurance. Get back to me when CS gets malpractice insurance!

You also missed entirely the self-deprecating irony. I don't blame you though because, assuming your a programmer, you've taken on the too-literal qualities of that infernal machine you spend all day trying to please. I'm sorry.

<comment><USER75> How often do software engineers get sued for bugs in their code?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scheduling glitch leaves thousands of American Air flights in December pilotless - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-american-airline-workers/scheduling-glitch-leaves-thousands-of-american-air-flights-in-december-pilotless-idUSKBN1DT2R8?il=0 <comment><USER2> Techmeme summary: _Alana Wise / Reuters: Pilots union says a computer glitch on bidding system for holidays means 15K+ American Airlines flights between December 17-31 have no pilot_</comment>


DeckHub – A TweetDeck style desktop client for GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://getdeckhub.com <comment><USER2> Using since it's private beta and so far so good. I already use TweetDeck and with DeckHub I am able to follow all the things easily.

</comment><comment><USER3> Loving it so far. Looks awesome both on my Windows 10 machine and Mac OS X.

</comment><comment><USER4> notifications are cool</comment>