| > So is this. Yes. And I don't know what your race or gender is, nor do I care, nor would it make a difference if I knew. > Which is enough for you to spread the old, tired, harmful, and incorrect trope that "people who are not in tech are just not interested". At this point in time today, not only it's not a tired trope, it's pretty much an obvious truth. Programming today has zero structural barriers to entry, minimal capital requirements, and unprecedented amount of affirmative action targeted at all kinds of minority groups. If in 2019 you aren't programming, you're either not interested in doing so (a fine choice!), or can't (due to economic or health constraints). Still, I was talking about the times where the Internet was a peculiar things only particular types of nerds, discriminated against in the physical world, ever found interesting. Getting on-line, or into programming in general, required more effort and money - you had to convince yourself or your parents that a PC and a modem and future phone bills were useful expenses - and didn't yet offered obvious paths to riches. If you were in there, it meant you were interested and had wealth to spare. That means, obviously, that a lot of people were excluded. But if the point you're making is that any group with barriers to entry will exclude someone, then I don't see the point of making that point. (You'll also notice that all the talk of the tech being unwelcoming started only after commercial Internet exploded and some of those high-school oppression targets made a shit ton of money and influence. Once tech became seen as the easiest path into money and fame, people started asking "how come the population of tech workers isn't uniformly distributed across all the characteristics you could think of", and people who were underrepresented followed that with "how can we fix it so we too get a piece of the pie?".) I see some people on-line have a peculiar definition of what it means for a field to be welcoming - not only it has to remove all the barriers to entry, but it also has to bend over backwards to make the demographics uniform. It's true that the tech, until recently, didn't do the latter. |
In a very trivial sense this is true-ish. In the US lots of women seemed to have lost interest in computing in the mid 1980s: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
With a massive change like this, there must be some sort of societal shift behind it. You don't have to buy the article's thesis regarding the concrete reason. But there was something going on in society that changed young women's minds.
But "society pressured me into losing interest" is not the same as "I wasn't, our could not have been, interested in the first place". So yes, many women "aren't interested" in the trivial sense of "we had enough discussion threads in HN and elsewhere signaling that they shouldn't be interested, and finally this perception stuck".
> If you were in there, it meant you were interested and had wealth to spare.
If we agree that in many cases that wealth came from parents, there is no reason to assume that young women had less of it than young men. Unless there were factors like parents saying things like "computers are for boys". From the article above: "In the 1990s, researcher Jane Margolis interviewed hundreds of computer science students at Carnegie Mellon University, which had one of the top programs in the country. She found that families were much more likely to buy computers for boys than for girls — even when their girls were really interested in computers."
If you were in there, it meant you were interested (check), your parents had wealth to spare (check), and you were very likely a boy.
Anyway, all of this has been rehashed many times before, and we're unlikely to change each other's minds.