←back to thread

Lore Harp McGovern built a microcomputer empire from her suburban home

(every.to)
551 points adrianhon | 10 comments | 08 Apr 24 15:48 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
toolz ◴[08 Apr 24 19:57 UTC] No.39973124[source]▶
I do believe there are unique challenges to being a woman in tech, but the odds seem in favor of women doing well both back in the 70's and today with todays stats having roughly 20% of CS grads being female while some 23% of SWEs are female. That suggests there are more women in software jobs than women who have been pursing that career academically. What stats do you see that suggest the odds are against women in tech? I frequently recommend tech as a good field for young girls, but I'll probably not do that anymore if the odds are truly against them.
replies(5): >>39973152 #>>39973376 #>>39974169 #>>39975159 #>>39977157 #
leononame ◴[08 Apr 24 20:01 UTC] No.39973152[source]▶
How ist 20%/23% good? Am I reading the numbers wrong? 40%, that I could agree on. But 23% is very low.

Another thing is culture. The in the company's where I've worked at, how the men talked about women was pretty off-putting to be honest. They didn't do it in front of women (obviously), but even your nerdy developers would drop comments that had me wondering whether I was really in the ckrrect field. I'm sure the women in those places notice that even if it's behind their backs.

replies(3): >>39973187 #>>39973233 #>>39973307 #
toolz ◴[08 Apr 24 20:06 UTC] No.39973187[source]▶
well I'm not making a value judgement, but we're talking about odds, not "good" or "bad"...if 20% of women go after a software job and the field is made up of an even higher %, that suggests the odds are amazing for women. Odds don't tell the whole story, but the odds seem in women's favor at the moment.
replies(1): >>39973812 #
1. leononame ◴[08 Apr 24 21:16 UTC] No.39973812[source]▶
If you define odds being good as "the odds are good for the ones that choose to study CS", sure. But if you define the odds as "women overall", 20% is a relatively poor number in my opinion. Yes, we're getting better and yes, it takes time. But I don't think we can pat ourselves on the back here. That the women who decide to work on tech do well is (in my very unscientific and unproven) opinion just an indicator that the women who do join tech are on average more skilled than the men who decide to join tech.

That's for a myriad of reasons, but the main one being that men gravitate to tech more, so even if they're not a huge talent they still might choose a career in tech, whereas women might prefer a different career unless they have a very strong calling.

replies(1): >>39976750 #
2. trimethylpurine ◴[09 Apr 24 06:48 UTC] No.39976750[source]▶
These assumptions and stats are virtually meaningless.

Every human being, man or woman, has unique challenges. Classifying these challenges by sex ignores the vast and more important majority of an individual's fitness for one career or another, or lack there of.

More than just encouraging your daughter to study tech or any other career (tech might be saturated), encourage them to learn how to interview aggressively, and how to ask for raises. Encourage them to be fearless.

And do the same for your sons.

replies(2): >>39977213 #>>39979188 #
3. AlecSchueler ◴[09 Apr 24 08:21 UTC] No.39977213[source]▶
> Every human being, man or woman, has unique challenges.

Have you faced sex based discrimination, intimidation or othering in your workplace?

> ignores the vast and more important majority of an individual's fitness

The issue is that the capacity of women is backgrounded to the point that they have to do more to be seen as talented as their male counterparts. I'm sure every woman in tech would love to focus on skills instead of sex but that's just not the world they're presented with.

> More than just encouraging your daughter to study tech

More than this teach your sons about bias against women, how to have empathy for historically marginalised groups, how to give space for quieter voices, the broader cultural norms that lead to inequality etc

You can teach generations of daughters whatever you like but the weight of solving these issues is far from resting only on women, and the idea that it is is ironically hostile in itself.

replies(1): >>39986260 #
4. WarOnPrivacy ◴[09 Apr 24 13:23 UTC] No.39979188[source]▶
> Every human being, man or woman, has unique challenges.

And many people get heaped additional challenges by virtue of their birth group - challenges that are commonly supplied by people whose birth group started at the lowest difficulty level.

replies(1): >>39986191 #
5. trimethylpurine ◴[10 Apr 24 01:48 UTC] No.39986191{3}[source]▶
Yes. Including homelessness, disease, religious background, language, distance from an opportunity, nationality, sexual orientation, financial stability of their parents, lack of lottery winnings or inheritance, mental acuity or lack there of, mental disorder, physical deformity, and indeed sex. And combinations of those and etc.'s that I didn't think of.

Everyone has countless reasons to fail. Sex is by far among the smallest of those reasons.

replies(1): >>40015221 #
6. trimethylpurine ◴[10 Apr 24 02:04 UTC] No.39986260{3}[source]▶
Women are kicking ass because they kick ass, not because men are "helping" by viewing them as disabled. Ask any successful woman if she needs your help. Lol. Individuality is more important than your labeling by a huge margin.
replies(1): >>39988810 #
7. AlecSchueler ◴[10 Apr 24 09:47 UTC] No.39988810{4}[source]▶
Recognising and actively working to dismantle issues of systemic bias against women isn't viewing women as disabled.

I've spoken with many women about this and volunteered alongside many others on various projects aiming to help tackle these issues such as Women in Tech Netherlands. The women I've encountered have universally recognised the importance of allyship. Who are the women you spoke with who laughed?

You can read about that's importance of allyship here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/women-tech-why-allyship-impor...

You might disagree with what she says but you'll struggle you convince me that I should give more weight to your views on this than the actual women involved.

replies(1): >>39999174 #
8. trimethylpurine ◴[11 Apr 24 07:07 UTC] No.39999174{5}[source]▶
Your daughter isn't "women." My commentary isn't about changing the world. It's about providing the practical tools for individual success. Focusing on individual advantages, rationally and with careful planning, produces results. Their sex isn't really something to focus on when compared with the majority of other hurdles having a dramatically larger impact in their life. They should focus on things they can act on if you want them to be successful.

My mother retired in the 2000's earning more than 2M / yr running her own business. That's net, not gross. A single mother of two. My earliest memories are in a homeless shelter. It's not a competition to know someone. While not a woman, I earn in the top 1%. I credit my mom for that.

It's obvious that people who focus on what's in their control, tend to produce results.

Ally groups are great for networking. It's just not what I'm talking about.

9. WarOnPrivacy ◴[12 Apr 24 17:10 UTC] No.40015221{4}[source]▶
> Sex is by far among the smallest of those reasons.

By smallest you mean over 50% of the population.

replies(1): >>40021344 #
10. trimethylpurine ◴[13 Apr 24 07:56 UTC] No.40021344{5}[source]▶
Yes, exactly. And therefore it has the least impact on the individual.

Giving everyone a dollar is the same as giving no one a dollar. -Econ 101

Compare that with say, severe anxiety, inability to take tests, low IQ. Or even just lack of interview experience, and never asking for a raise.

These last two dramatically affect income and are true of a strikingly large number of women compared with men.[1]

Is it possible that women aren't asking for raises because everyone keeps telling them that they need "special" help (implied inferiority)? That they won't get raises, so why bother?

I think it's a factor. I think your argument, while well intentioned, might be causal in preventing women's success.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/women-are-still-not-a...