[justuk]

To work in technology, especially programming, you have to put a heck of a lot of effort into the subject. If it's not some legacy technology then that also means learning constantly (on your own initiative). That's what I like about programming, it rewards knowledge and ability - whereas other careers reward other attributes.

I look at the Twttier-style feminists (I don't mean the traditional equality types, but the extremists) and can only think that they are doing it for their own gain. If they really wanted to participate in their targets of anger, they could just do what everyone else does: work hard at a hobby for years, even decades, and maybe, just maybe they too could dominate the field.

[onion2k]

There are many examples of girls being actively refused entry in to technology classes[1] based on their gender. When the education system itself is prejudiced against women it's unreasonable to suggest women aren't getting tech jobs because they're unwilling to put in the effort - they can't because they're blocked from doing so.

[1] A recent example http://jezebel.com/girl-fights-library-s-boys-only-robotics-...

[jazzyk]

I would say this a sample of 1 - and from a biased source, too.

My daughter graduated form high-school last year. Not only had I not heard a single case of girls being refused entry to anything - most of the times it seemed like my daughter and her female friends (most of them straight "A" students in a very competitive high-school in the Boston, MA area) were almost harassed to join the math club, the robotics club, etc.

None of them had any interest - they all found it "boring". The reasons are complex and a another topic, but in short, part of it is biology, part of it pop-culture where "nerd"/"geek" is not something you want to be.

[jazzyk]

Please do not downvote just because you disagree - it is against the rules.

I was questioning the statement "many examples of girls being actively refused...", because the poster provided an example of ONE incident. I provided valid observations from my own experience, providing contrary evidence, just to make a point that we cannot form an opinion based on one event.

[justuk]

Your comments are fine in my book. They reflect an uncomfortable reality that many don't want to accept. And yes, the link isn't the best of sources, their owner courts controversy and has made some terrible mistakes recently.

[nzp]

> Please do not downvote just because you disagree - it is against the rules.

It's not. I can see how this myth took root on HN, but it's funny how persistent it is given that it was clarified quite a few times even by PG.

[juliangregorian]

The justification given is extremely interesting as well (if misguided?). We generally wouldn't have a problem with a girls-only tech program because girls are disadvantaged in tech. But boys in school are lagging behind in lots of school subjects. Still, one wonders why robotics is supposed to improve literacy.

[tzs]

It's probably not robotics per se that are supposed to improve the boys so they won't fall behind over the summer. It's probably anything that gets them thinking systematically.

They probably went with robotics over something like French history because the program can only work if it is interesting enough to get kids to sign up.

[killface]

Yeah, and my college had (back in 2000) a womens-only robotics group. Where's your outrage over the men?

This is a dumb example.

[_bfhp]

If women decide to talk about anything other than their "equality" under the law, they are The Extremists who are "doing it for their own gain"? (What does this phrase mean? I would assume women would be engaging in feminist discourse for their own gain, who else's?)

[justuk]

I don't think you understand because I was being too concise. There are standard feminists and I have no problem with them, in fact, many even bat for both sides, so they will help to promote equality issues that men face.

On Twitter however, there is a more extremist crowd who go after people, manipulate facts, get people fired (who dare to have a different opinion), organise offended mobs, all sorts of unfortunate behaviour. To put it simply: they are pushing their selectively puritan views on bystanders who give in too readily and, in the process, become famous from those actions.

[ceejayoz]

> That's what I like about programming, it rewards knowledge and ability - whereas other careers reward other attributes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[roflc0ptic]

I think this is a cheap argument.

I work with business analysts. At first, I didn't think well of them - their job is to turn business rules into software requirements. They kind of understand the business, and kind of understand software. My feeling, which I was embarrassed by, is that I could do their jobs better than they can.

After having been here a while, I still feel the same way, but I'm not embarrassed by it. I have to understand everything that a business analyst does, and also how software works. Our company tells us we should spend 30% (!!) of our time on professional development. I think that's totally awesome. A business analyst recently made the comment "I don't even know what I'd spend 30% of my time learning about."

Most jobs really are about getting along with people. Even engineering jobs. But engineering requires paying substantial intellectual costs up front, and then paying on a continual basis, in a way that most other professions simply do not.

[ceejayoz]

> I think this is a cheap argument.

I think "other careers don't require knowledge and ability like mine does" is the perfect example of illusory superiority.

In my experience, competent people are pretty good at making their jobs look pretty easy, but actually trying to do it without their built-up knowledge and ability is another story. The feeling that you can do their job better than they can might fade if you had to do it for a couple months. There are a lot of edge cases and unexpected complexities you don't get properly exposed to just looking over someone's shoulder sometimes.

[d23]

> I think "other careers don't require knowledge and ability like mine does" is the perfect example of illusory superiority.

Actually that's plenty fine. Just do a quick thought experiment: a career like garbageman or janitor. Some careers require more knowledge work than others. There's nothing wrong with that.

When did this attitude of "everything's equal all the time and nothing's different" become so pervasive and accepted?

[awkward]

If someone disagrees with the statement "programming is a fundamentally different career from everything else in terms of ability and knowledge required" it does not follow that they believe "all careers including garbageman and janitor are equal in ability and knowledge to programming and none of them are different."

[oldmanjay]

If someone disagrees with the statement "programming is a fundamentally different career from everything else in terms of ability and knowledge required" then they almost certainly don't know how to write good software.