From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 8b782659 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 23:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id ECCE99B911; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:40:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C229B8FA; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:40:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 257B49B8FA; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:40:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7E349B8F9 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:40:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 8D09235E133; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:40:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:40:27 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Message-ID: <20190214234027.GA26831@mcvoy.com> References: <20190214192940.ED58418C0AB@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <1b71e45e-5711-ee8d-2bc8-4ea6298311dd@solar.stanford.edu> <201902142037.x1EKbpnR017241@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <33ce5850-f0b5-1fa9-d459-58d4e2416e80@telegraphics.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <33ce5850-f0b5-1fa9-d459-58d4e2416e80@telegraphics.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] Women in computing X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" > > There's a theory that sounds superficially plausible to me, which is that > > women leave the field because they're more responsible than men. The theory > > I was REALLY hoping gender essentialism wouldn't be enlisted in this > thread. Oh well. Politically correct(?) thoughts that attempt to counter facts aren't helpful to *any* discussion. Yeah, there are always going to be people that buck the norms, that doesn't change the fact that most members of both genders are going show traits found in their gender. The exceptions don't break the rules. You might be educated by listening to what transgender people who are on hormone therapy have to say. MtF will tell you they lose a ton of upper body strenght. Hormones are a thing, backed by lots of science, and men and women have different hormones and are, as a result, different. You'll notice I never used the terms "better" or "worse". Just different. I'm all for more women in CS, if they want to be there (and the people of CS, the dudes, have work to do to make the women want to be there). I fully agree that both genders should be encouraged to try to succeed at whatever they want. To a point. Pushing people to do something that they'll never be good at is mean. Figuring if they will/won't be good is sometimes tricky, sometimes obvious. I just wish people wouldn't bring political correctness into discussions, it doesn't help. I also get that people don't like being put in neat little boxes. But taking away those boxes for the exceptions is not always the right thing. Are you fine with fire departments changing the physical fitness rules so women can join? As in full on join, not be put on the radios or driving, stuff that they can do just fine, but full on fire fighters? I dunno about you, but 100 pound woman is not who I want to see when my 200 body needs to be carried out of a burning building. Rather than try and make everyone fit into the same boxes, why not sort them into the boxes where they can excel? If some buff woman can meet the requirements to be a fire fighter, go for it, go her. But don't change the requirements so woman without the necessary strength can get the job, that's just putting her in a position where she won't succeed. And that's not helpful at all. We're CS people, we know how to optimize, and I can assure you it won't work by saying everyone is capable of everything. I coached roller hockey and it is the exact opposite of saying everyone can do everything. You learn each person's strengths and their weaknesses, play to the strengths, figure out which weaknesses can be turned into strengths, and leave the ones that can't in the locker room. I've seen women at the adult level of hockey that can blow away 99% of most men but that's an exception. Here's the norm: the US Women's National team practices against high school boys because they are evenly matched, the national men's team would crush them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJk-JEkdIo Same thing in tennis: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-male-professional-tennis-players-are-better-than-female-professional-ones Putting everyone in one box is unfair to one gender or the other, depending on the box.