
Women Who Code (YC S16) helps female engineers level up in their careers - stvnchn
http://themacro.com/articles/2016/06/women-who-code/
======
larrik
_Women who are halfway into their careers in tech are leaving at a rate of
56%, which is more than double the quit rate of men. One reason for the high
quit rate may be that women have a much lower chance of being promoted, even
when they have the same amount of experience and tenure as their male peers,
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research._

So around the time a lot of people have kids? They probably discover that you
need to make a LOT of money to pay for daycare per kid, and at 2+ you might as
well just stay home.

I'm going to go out and a limb here and say that solid support for working
moms would be one of the more effective strategies for long-term careers for
women. I also can't imagine that it's that easy getting back into a tech
career after 8 years of being a state-at-home mom (which is about 2-3 kids,
with the youngest finally in kindergarten), looking for to work for a specific
6 hours per day on school days.

Maybe SF is different, though. I'm not there.

~~~
throwaway293810
> you might as well just stay home

But why does it have to be the woman who stays home? Why is this just the
tacit assumption?

I'd love to see not just solid support for moms at work, but solid support /
encouragement for dads at home: paternity leave up-to-par with maternity
leave, a normalization and acceptance of stay-at-home dads where desired, etc.
It's kind of amazing how prevalent the assumption is that children are mom's
problem. As a guy I care about this not just from a supporting-women
perspective but from a when-I-have-kids-I'll-want-to-spend-time-with-them-too
perspective. This should be one of the easiest ways for men to be sold on
feminism.

Somehow though, paternity leave is a second class citizen and people who talk
about advancement of women mostly just talk about maternity leave benefits.
Let me help! I'm happy to take care of kids while you build your career!

~~~
larrik
As someone who has taken the kids out and about during the day, I have to say
that it's _awkward_. You end up being the only man in a group of dozens of
women with their kids, or you are the guy at the playground sitting by himself
while his kids play on it (which looks a ton like you don't have any kids to
an outsider). Society, at least in most of the U.S. is frankly a bit hostile
to males as the caregivers. I can't imagine what single dads have to go
through.

~~~
ankey1
And now you know how it feels to be the only woman engineer on a team of 20
engineers. It's awkward and sometimes hard for women engineers like me to
focus on our jobs because of the awkwardness contributing to hostile work
environments. And this is why it's awesome that YC is supporting Women Who
Code.

~~~
enraged_camel
Sure. Just so we are clear though, there is a huge difference between being
regarded and treated as a potential pedophile/kidnapper (father at a
playground) vs. simply an outsider.

[http://www.freerangekids.com/thanks-for-assuming-im-a-
pedoph...](http://www.freerangekids.com/thanks-for-assuming-im-a-pedophile-
just-because-i-was-out-with-my-grandson/)

~~~
alphydan
I don't think "simply an outsider" covers many of the experiences described by
some women in tech: Groping, sexual harassment, assumptions on getting the job
on looks, over-scrutiny of their work, etc ...

This is not every woman's experience, but neither is the pedophile one. I have
worked at an all girls school and everyone - parents, students, children was
fine with it.

------
hsubi
Is it just me or does anyone find these type of groups too career oriented?
Don't get me wrong, I am a female dev and I'm all for equal opportunity and
working towards supportive environment for any gender or non-gendered, sexual
orientation or no orientation. I don't really find these organisations really
that helpful in bringing everyone together. I'm a nerd by nature before I knew
computers existed and becoming a coder just came naturally to me. Obviously
it's not because I'm unique and amazing. I just grew up in an environment with
a lot of freedom as a child so I wasn't limited to think or act in a certain
way. Anyway I wouldn't be comfortable in a group like wwcode because looking
at the blurbs on the site it's just too career oriented. I wouldn't fit in at
all but that doesn't mean I don't have the same problems these women have.
Just because my sex is female I get treated differently even though I don't
necessarily feel either female or male inside and I'm a pure thoroughbred
nerd. I don't feel like climbing the career ladder because I enjoy being the
lowly dev as long as there's a bit of freedom in how I solve problems and
problems are not too terribly boring. All this, yeah you're a woman, yeah you
deserve to get promoted etc kinda puts me off a little bit. I'm sure it's all
with good intentions but if I'm feeling like this (a woman) imagine all those
males who feel threatened by us. That's why I think these type of
organisations, even though they have good intentions sometimes fall short at
bringing everybody together. Because in the end we all need to come to an
understanding and accept our differences to have a truly harmonious society.
Also a side point about people comparing computing jobs with nursing or bin
lorry operators. You are comparing apples and oranges. There are factors such
as money, status, education levels to consider and are different. No one is
blocked from becoming a bin lorry man/woman and as a kid no one dreamt of
becoming one. They add a lot of value to the society though maybe even more
than some developers but that's another discussion. Ok rant's over. :)

~~~
dclowd9901
Are you actually complaining about an increased societal focus and push for
women's success at work? What exactly is "too career focused", and what would
you rather see from assemblies of people who are trying to bolster women's
place at work -- or would you simply rather not see such assemblies at all?

~~~
hsubi
I am not saying that I would rather no see such assemblies at all. I know
people have good intentions but I wish there is a bit more holistic approach
to this rather than, it being just for a type of woman. It should include
male, female, non-sex, people who wants kid and people who don't want kids,
people with different aspirations in life, not necessary the traditional path
set out such as school, work, marriage, kids etc.

beepboop2045 made a good point though about women working under female
leadership. We do need role models. I just wish there are other paths being
considered and talked about.

------
carrja99
This is likely going to be 100% ignored since I'm late to the party on this
but my wife's experiences have been that true discrimination and difficulty
doesn't rise until a female engineer tries to enter management. When she was
"just an engineer" things were great and nothing went wrong.

When she tried to level up into management, she faced these difficulties:

\- competition from other female managers who had transitioned into the role
from product management. They often times felt immensely threatened by her
technical acumen and played politics to stop her.

\- Lots of pretending from engineers (never the ones she's led, oddly enough)
that she "doesn't know anything"

\- Her current manager recently demoted her on his second day and told her
"she should do engineering because he believes she'll do great at it and, if
she can prove herself, she might be put in charge of a project and have a
chance at leadership in the future."

The last one still has me pretty irked since it's recent.

~~~
cloudjacker
isn't this a challenge for every software engineer?

it is practically a stereotype for other engineers to criticize someone else's
code

it is practically a stereotype for senior software engineers to face a career
plateau

and you think this was uniquely sexual discrimination? so lets give you the
benefit of the doubt, of the things you described, these are issues all
software engineers face.

~~~
brianlweiner
The reality is that women face presumptions about their technical incompetence
at a much higher rate than men. This is well documented and researched. [1]

Obviously male developers also get undermined by their coworkers and face
career plateaus. That is reality, but it is not a binary action - simply
because some men face similar problems does not imply that it is an equal
problem for both genders.

[1] [http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-
jeopa...](http://www.uchastings.edu/news/articles/2015/01/double-jeopardy-
report.pdf)

~~~
cloudjacker
Yeah I'm going to stick to what I said earlier, the way you phrased it almost
tries to put a shield around any rebuttal.

He could have completely not mentioned the idea of gender being a crutch and
it would have sounded like a gender neutral problem known to engineers.

~~~
carrja99
You do have a point. I do have a male friend who is also facing a similar
situation. When I commented I was emotional since it was more recent and while
she was demoted without regards to performance the dude promoted 3 white guys
he brought in. ಠ_ಠ

------
zassmin
It's an honor to be a part of YC S16! As an organization, we've been committed
to making sure our members stay in tech and excel in the industry.

We are excited to work with our Partners at YC and further enhance the Women
Who Code experience. :)

~~~
H0n3sty
Do you agree with the recent diversity and inclusion effort at github which
noted that _(6) some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women_?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/diversity-guru-discusses-
whit...](http://www.businessinsider.com/diversity-guru-discusses-white-
women-2016-2)

~~~
douche
I'm not sure I agree with it, but there may be a point there that upper and
middle class white women playing the victim card discredits it for those who
have had more serious barriers to entry.

------
bastijn
I wonder how much of the balance difference is due to boys liking tech more
than girls. I'd say that if you ask 10-15 year olds, who hardly think about
their future, about what they do in their free time you will find equal
balance on the reply "gaming/stuff on my PC". Most girls don't like it, that
translates to later stages in life I guess. Never see the reports for other
fields where females excel in acceptance rates. Teachers, daycare, psychology,
there are plenty really.

Mind you, I'm not saying women are treated equally once they _have_ the job,
I'm just not sold on this whole "only x% of tech is women!" Thing. We can
probably learn a thing or two on how to treat our female colleagues, but
please stop trying to fight for 50% should be women kind of causes. There are
other fields where it is completely the other way around and I don't see
people fighting there for equal rights.

~~~
DanBC
> I don't see people fighting there for equal rights.

 _every_ time the gender imbalance comes up on HN someone makes the same
comment you have.

Did you try Google? Because those programmes are trivially easy to find.

People will often make a similar comment about the lack of programmes to get
women into construction or mining. But those programmes are really easy to
find too.

~~~
bastijn
I wasn't hinting at other programmes for women. I was hinting at programmes
where men were at a disadvantage and fought for equal rights. Or even better,
where women acknowledged the fact that only 20% of psychology, teachers, or
whatever are men. There suddenly it isn't a problem to have the imbalance?
Should we favor men in those categories over women? Just because we have fewer
male teachers? So unfair! To think that women are better with children and
thus hire them faster.. (Just to be sure: im exaggerating)

I do curse the fact that women who found a job in tech are handled differently
but in return I would love to have front fighters for women equal rights drop
the whole "we have so few women in tech" statement. I think most of that is
due to the difference in what men or women have affinity with, not hiring
process or disadvantages.

In other words, stop confusing amount of women in tech with equal women's
rights. These are not casually related.

~~~
foldr
> I was hinting at programmes where men were at a disadvantage and fought for
> equal rights.

That's exactly what DanBC was referring to. There are such programmes for
nursing, teaching, and many other fields. (Although the situation with nursing
is complex, as male nurses are not getting paid less than their female
counterparts.)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-
mor...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-
into-teaching.html?_r=0)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07conted-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/education/edlife/07conted-t.html)

------
alainapercival
Hey @Alaina from Women Who Code here. We are thrilled to be joining the YC
community and I'm happy to answer questions.

~~~
wyldfire
> Women Who Code is an international 501c3 non-profit organization that works
> to empower career-aged women to excel in their technology careers.

Is there any relationship with the Girls Who Code organization? Because of the
similarity of names it sounds as if it's a similar concept targeted at an
older female audience.

~~~
zassmin
Great question.

We focus on making sure our members stay in their engineering careers and
excel in them!

Girls Who Code focuses on getting high school girls interested in STEM.

Our members often mentor Girls Who Code members.

------
jfe
i have trouble accepting the idea that fewer women in tech is a problem. it's
not that i want to discourage women -- or anyone -- from going into tech. i
just don't believe in encouraging anyone to do _anything_ in particular,
except what they enjoy. i'd appreciate it if someone can persuade me that the
hype is true so i no longer need to feel like a black sheep. but..

for one, the fact that there are fewer women than men in any field, computing
or otherwise, is neither good nor bad. the disproportionate number of women in
nursing is not seen as a problem, but somehow it has become one in tech.

two, as we flood more people into professional computing, the good pay -- one
of the reasons given on the wwcode website for encouraging women to enter the
field -- will decrease, due to the increased supply of workers. tech is
reduced to Yet Another Job, and Women Who Bgurp becomes the next YC startup.

three, the wwcode website argues that diverse teams perform better by
increasing collective intelligence -- measured in what units? and when it
claims that organizations with the largest representation of women leadership
have a higher return on investment, how is that measured? this seems super
hand-wavy to me.

lastly, the website's statement about women investing 90% of their income in
their communities "when [they] make more" is not only unlikely, but is
predicated on the long-term availability of good pay in professional
computing, which, as i mentioned earlier, will decline at a rate proportional
to the frequency with which we encourage people to enter the field.

~~~
lukeschlather
> for one, the fact that there are fewer women than men in any field,
> computing or otherwise, is neither good nor bad. the disproportionate number
> of women in nursing is not seen as a problem, but somehow it has become one
> in tech.

I don't agree. I think the gender disparity in nursing is just as much a
problem. I think it's a significantly less tractable problem though, because I
don't think the monetary incentives are there for men to enter nursing.

As for your economic arguments, I think they're oversimplified. We really
don't know what the job market is going to look like long-term. We do know
that the computing job market has quadrupled in size over the past 20 years,
and it is a good bet that the job market can quadruple again over the next 20
years, without any loss in median salary.

Back to monetary incentives. The median salary for software engineers could be
reduced by 25% and it would still be a good career choice. So there's no real
reason not to encourage more people to enter the field. Nursing has a
substantially lower median salary.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
> The median salary for software engineers could be reduced by 25% and it
> would still be a good career choice. So there's no real reason not to
> encourage more people to enter the field. Nursing has a substantially lower
> median salary.

That's not accurate, at least when controlling for location. Going by BLS
data, the difference between RNs and software engineers is less than 25% in
LA, NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and probably many other places that I
didn't check. In San Francisco, RNs actually get paid more on average.

~~~
lukeschlather
It's not useful to control for location without controlling for number of jobs
available. What I'm really trying to approximate is "How difficult is it to
get a job making at least a six-figure salary as a nurse or a software
developer?" In SF for example, there are at least twice as many software
developer positions as nursing positions. So while the median may be higher
for nurses, it's still harder to get a high-paid nursing job than a similarly
paid software job.

[http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-
release/occupationalemp...](http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-
release/occupationalemploymentandwages_sanfrancisco.htm)

------
ones_and_zeros
I spend a lot of my time and personal money to encourage high school students
to pursue a field in STEM (specifically robotics), however, lately I've been
having trouble convincing myself to continue due to the long term prospects of
a career in STEM. As a professional software engineer at a well known software
company, I can only see it as a dead end job with low status and a small shelf
life due to age discrimination.

I'd be interested to hear from others who are interested in inclusion how they
feel about potentially painting too rosey of a picture.

~~~
hpagey
I share your feeling. I am actively seeking of moving away from the tech
field. I am still trying to figure out how to do that (maybe PT MBA will help
not sure). My wife who is a software engineer will also exit the tech field in
few years, so will my sister.

------
lifeisstillgood
I would be interested in the number of men or women who leave tech because the
next promotion effectively is a promotion out of tech and into management.

What is the record like with tech companies with engineer tracks vs normal up
or out? How big is the male female divide in those cases - and is the diff
significant?

~~~
nostrebored
Half of the women who leave (so roughly 25%) leave tech fields altogether.

The numbers are fudged such that women in management are still considered as
in tech. Most "women in tech" numbers that you see include PMs, POs, IT
workers, Support Engineers, etc.

The male female divide is actually quite large in management. Women are
promoted to management disproportionately (hypotheses include "better people
skills" and a distrust of their technical ability).

"We find that senior technical women are significantly more likely to be in a
manager position (36.9%) than are men (19%); conversely, men at the high level
are significantly more likely to be in an individual contributor position
(80.6%) than are women (63.1%)." [0]

"45 percent of women technologists felt like women were being “pushed” into
execution roles, and 42 percent of women reported that women do not have equal
access to technology creation roles." [0]

[0] [http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Senior-
Techni...](http://gender.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Senior-Technical-
Women-A-Profile-of-Success.pdf)

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Thanks.

------
asimuvPR
If anyone from WWC is reading:

Is there a cutoff age (age > n) for participants or members?

~~~
alainapercival
The average age across our entire community is 30, but people of all age are
welcome. We've had people from kids and teens to people with more than 30
years of experience join.

------
saiya-jin
is it really true that women don't get promoted in engineering as much? that's
a honest question, the only few I've met did not aspire for higher and higher
positions intensively, rather enjoyed what they were doing (that could be said
about most of the guys too).

I am all for equal situations for both genders, but my assumption was that we
already +-have it in western societies, thus such a move would make guys
actually in a disadvantage and thus be unfair.

IT is not a very cool job to non/tech people outside few top companies like
facebook or google, somewhere along accountants maybe. naturally, more
ambitious ones will go for jobs like lawyers (if they have no heart :)) or
medicine as my fiancee did. IT is just not that sexi.

another point - if you are in your 40s, it's hard to be just developer. people
move up to architecture or management, which I consider both boring as hell -
endless conf calls, producing never-ending stream of powerpoints etc. not
exactly why creative people came into IT in first place.

I admit other branches of engineering might look differently, no clue about
it.

~~~
sp332
[http://i.imgur.com/reUNxYu.png](http://i.imgur.com/reUNxYu.png) Definitely
something odd going on in computer science.

~~~
douche
The inflection point is right about when consumer PCs (personal computers in
general, not wintel specifically) became a thing. What are consumer PCs used
for, when they aren't being used productively? Gaming, and kids who like games
trying to learn how to make their own games (particularly in the pre-web 2.0
era... Web 2.0, remember that?). And ultimately, who was the main consumer of
PC gaming? 12-25 year old boys and men.

Then you've got a decline in the wake of the Dot-Com bust. One has to wonder
if the gains in the other fields of study cannibalized high-aptitude women who
might have gone into CS.

------
womanwhocodes
how exactly are they helping women? I am on their mailing list and it is not
particularly useful. Once got interested in a "free" scholarship, contacted
them, and the person tried to sell me a course for almost $10K.

It's impossible for a woman after 35 to get back in tech

------
dimino
How does VC funding for a non-profit work? How does YC exit or recoup their
investment?

~~~
nepstein
It's a charitable donation -
[https://www.ycombinator.com/nonprofits/](https://www.ycombinator.com/nonprofits/)

------
jboggan
Congratulations Alaina!

------
H0n3sty
What would people think if the genders were reversed and this institution was
discriminating against women and only helping men? Women have a far larger
presence in other fields like biology and education, but you don't see new
organizations popping up every other month to change that in favor of men.

Discrimination like this should be illegal.

~~~
wpietri
The reason women dominate in certain fields is that those fields were
generally seen as less important, so women were pushed into them. E.g.,
doctors were men, women were nurses, and there was an enormous pay and
prestige difference between the two. (Hint: it did not favor the nurses.)

If you're interested in learning more, researching "pink ghetto" will get you
started.

~~~
HarshTruth
Its actually the other way around. Men face more pressure to earn a higher
income than women, so more men enter higher paying careers.

1\. Women prefer to marry a guy who makes more money than her. So there is
significant sexual pressure to become a high status ($) man.

2\. Men (statistically) can't marry up large income gaps. So they know that
what ever lifestyle they want, they have to be solely responsible for it.

Women on the other hand have more freedom to do what they desire since men
care far less about their partners income, and women have the economic
security of being able to marry a higher income partner.

~~~
strictnein
Men also end up working in far more dangerous jobs, which pay more. The gap in
workplace accidents and deaths affecting men vs women is staggering. Over 90%
of workplace deaths are men.

------
NTDF9
I don't understand this constant fight to have 50%.

There are capable women who climb ladders successfully. The other women who
couldn't, simply couldn't, just like many men who couldn't.

Also, pregnancy and breastfeeding cannot be done by a man. A woman who aspires
to be a mother will have to compromise on other things to be a mother, which
probably will include a compromise in career.

A man who aspires to be a father will have to compromise on other things to be
a father, which probably will include a compromise in EVERY OTHER FACET of his
life ensuring he has a job to pay the bills for the woman and children.

Why is motherhood such a stigma? Why is career the all-important thing that
EVERY woman has to pursue? Let the woman choose herself what she wants to do.

~~~
nostrebored
So you think that there are more incapable women than men in the world?

Women are capable of working in fields like tech through pregnancy. We have
breast pumps and formula. If you're going to complain about maternity leave,
why is the man not taking paternity leave to help his partner and bond with
his child?

Why does it have to be the man making all of these decisions? Why can't both
partners work together ot support a child?

Why is motherhood viewed in the ridiculous, rigid way that we see it today a
given? The thing is, given attitudes like yours (which are emblematic of
societies) you're presented a false dichotomy of "career-woman" or the
martyrdom of modern motherhood.

~~~
NTDF9
>> So you think that there are more incapable women than men in the world?

Incapable of what? Never once did I say women are incapable of either career
or motherhood. Women can efficiently do what they choose to. Juggling many
roles on the other hand is hard for any human being (regardless of gender)

>> Women are capable of working in fields like tech through pregnancy. We have
breast pumps and formula. If you're going to complain about maternity leave,
why is the man not taking paternity leave to help his partner and bond with
his child?

Who said that man doesn't want to take a paternity leave? Every single recent
father I know wants to take time off to bond with the kid. Unfortunately, he
can't without a cut in pay (in the US). Get this law in and you'll see so many
fathers doing it.

>> Why does it have to be the man making all of these decisions? Why can't
both partners work together ot support a child?

It is always a partnership. Only a partnership works. More often than not,
partnership == compromise from all parties involved to WIN.

If you were a basketball watcher, you'd know that not everyone can play point
guard even if they want to. Only one person plays that role and the remaining
support that person. Why? So that the team wins.

In a baby-making situation, WIN = produce a healthy baby and have enough
resources for its upbringing and the mother's safety.

With this definition of WIN, a man/woman who only wants selfish desires and
doesn't care for the partner or the kid is a subhuman being. Sorry. You both
need to be less selfish here for the sake of the kid.

>> Why is motherhood in the ridiculous, rigid way that we see it today a
given? The thing is, given attitudes like yours (which are emblematic of
societies) you're presented a false dichotomy of "career-woman" or the
martyrdom of modern motherhood.

Fine. Do both jobs half-heartedly. Anybody who has been a successful mother
knows that it is HARD. If you think it just "happens" you're badly mistaken.

~~~
nostrebored
>"There are capable women who climb ladders successfully. The other women who
couldn't, simply couldn't, just like many men who couldn't." There are fewer
women, proportionally, who "climb ladders" successfully. This implies that
there are fewer capable women than men in the world.

>"Who said that man doesn't want to take a paternity leave? Every single
recent father I know wants to take time off to bond with the kid.
Unfortunately, he can't without a cut in pay (in the US). Get this law in and
you'll see so many fathers doing it."

The mother being present is not required for a child to be exclusively
breastfed anymore. Pumping is quite effective. The only argument for only the
woman to be taking the time off and making these career compromises is one
that views women as the only capable caregivers.

>"It is always a partnership. Only a partnership works. More often than not,
partnership == compromise from all parties involved to WIN."

And this can't be done with both partners sharing in childcare
responsibilities and working? The data is out there (see my other posts) to
show that SAHM are significantly more angry, depressed, etc. than their
working counterparts. Is this a win for the mother and the baby?

Do you think that women are incapable of "playing point guard", i.e. providing
for their family?

>"Fine. Do both jobs half-heartedly. Anybody who has been a successful mother
knows that it is HARD. If you think it just "happens" you're badly mistaken."

I've stayed at home with child. I know that it's hard. Being a successful
PARENT is hard too, and the reason that motherhood is even harder for the
majority of the people that I know is their sole responsibility as child-
rearer.

~~~
NTDF9
>> There are fewer women, proportionally, who "climb ladders" successfully.
This implies that there are fewer capable women than men in the world.

Or, they make different life choices.

>> The mother being present is not required for a child to be exclusively
breastfed anymore. Pumping is quite effective. The only argument for only the
woman to be taking the time off and making these career compromises is one
that views women as the only capable caregivers.

Fine. Don't be a good parent. Women are not the only capable caregivers. Men
can be equally good. Women can be equally shitty. Unfortunately, law treats
women specially. Get this law to treat women the same as men.

>> And this can't be done with both partners sharing in childcare
responsibilities and working? The data is out there (see my other posts) to
show that SAHM are significantly more angry, depressed, etc. than their
working counterparts. Is this a win for the mother and the baby?

Do you think that women are incapable of "playing point guard", i.e. providing
for their family?

No. Women certainly can play point guard. But when was the last time you saw a
woman date a deadbeat? No woman wants to date a man who sits at
home....implicitly, men who are going to become a parent work (or have to
work).

Women can play point guards when they start having families with deadbeats.

>> I've stayed at home with child. I know that it's hard. Being a successful
PARENT is hard too, and the reason that motherhood is even harder for the
majority of the people that I know is their sole responsibility as child-
rearer.

It's not the mother's sole responsibility. But at least one partner has to
take more care of the kid while the other partner sacrifices their social life
for work. You can have men sitting at home taking care of the kid, but I don't
see many women married to men like that. Care to set an example?

~~~
nostrebored
>>Don't be a good parent.

Nice to see where this is going.

>>Get this law to treat women the same as men.

Wrt to parental leave, that's what I've been advocating for throughout this
thread. I think that the social and legal status quo sets up women as the
caregiver defaults, which is harmful to women.

>>Women can play point guards when they start having families with deadbeats.

Or, men could leave their jobs and let women return to work at a more
reasonable rate. You're again assuming that the male has to be the provider.
Why can't a man sacrifice his current career path while his partner continues
hers?

>>You can have men sitting at home taking care of the kid, but I don't see
many women married to men like that. Care to set an example?

I think you've missed the point. This is exactly what I did. Both my partner
and I have CS degrees from a top 10 university, and we decided that her career
looked more promising.

~~~
rimantas
> I think that the social and legal status quo sets up women > as the
> caregiver defaults, which is harmful to women.

That's quite sexist claim.

~~~
NTDF9
Not really. Laws in the US default to women as caregivers.

\- Women get maternity, men don't \- Women get default custody of child in
divorce, men don't \- Women get to adopt easier than men \- Domestic violence
on men is ignored/laughed upon, presumably because men are not caregivers but
violators by default \- Women don't have mandatory military conscription, men
do (presumably because men have to be fighters and women have to be caregivers
by default)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Laws in the US default to women as caregivers.

Mostly, they don't.

> Women get maternity, men don't

Well, by definition, its only "maternity" when the mother gets it, but the
federal requirement for unpaid, job-protected family leave in FMLA applies
equally to parents of both genders, as does (for one example) the California
state requirements for job-protected unpaid family (CFRA) and paid family
leave (PFL)

> Women get default custody of child in divorce, men don't

There is no legally-specified default custody in divorce; women get custody in
divorce more often because they are more likely to _request_ it. Men get
custody more often when it is contested between the parties.

> Women get to adopt easier than men

AFAIK, that's true for single women vs. single men in practice, but not an
example of a default in the law, since its a result of the practices of
private adoption agencies, not a result of a difference in legal requirements.

> Domestic violence on men is ignored/laughed upon, presumably because men are
> not caregivers but violators by default

Again, to the extent that's true, that's not an example of the law treating
them differently; as a matter of law, domestic violence is equally prohibited
when a male is the victim.

> Women don't have mandatory military conscription, men do

Well, no, since the draft ended and the all-volunteer force was established,
_no one_ has had mandatory military conscription in the US. Men are required
to register in preparation for any potential change in that policy, though, so
while overstated, this seems to be the single valid example of a legal
preference in the direction you suggest on your list.

~~~
NTDF9
> There is no legally-specified default custody in divorce; women get custody
> in divorce more often because they are more likely to request it. Men get
> custody more often when it is contested between the parties.

> Again, to the extent that's true, that's not an example of the law treating
> them differently; as a matter of law, domestic violence is equally
> prohibited when a male is the victim.

You are onto something. The laws seem to treat men and women the same.

So why is there a need for an organizations like "Women who code"? The law, on
paper, treats both men and women the same right?

If your answer is that the laws are unfair towards a particular gender, then
you yourself contradict the above mentioned points.

else if your answer is that "in practice" women get treated unfairly despite
equal on-paper laws, that is exactly what I meant by "US laws default to women
as caregivers". Men get treated unfairly in domestic and family issues.

Written law and law as it is enforced and practiced is very very different
when it comes to gender issues.

~~~
dragonwriter
> So why is there a need for an organizations like "Women who code"? The law,
> on paper, treats both men and women the same right?

There are many social reasons that the situations women face in the
programming might be different than those faced by men that have nothing to do
with differences in law, either on their face or in practical application.

> If your answer is that the laws are unfair towards a particular gender

But its not, so that's okay.

> else if your answer is that "in practice" women get treated unfairly despite
> equal on-paper laws

But my answer is not that they in practice get treated unfairly _in the
execution of the law_ , either.

------
falsestprophet
The two sexes are not identical. Boy are you going to be surprised about what
pants are hiding.

~~~
nostrebored
You know exactly what I mean. Arguing for the idea of "brain sex" is
essentialist and ridiculous. There's nothing that makes my wife or the average
woman a less capable programmer than anyone else in the field other than a
consistent problem with socialization.

~~~
H0n3sty
Men and women have been subject to different pressures throughout the
evolution of our species. Its seems unlikely that this would not lead to some
differences either on _average_ or across the populations.

~~~
nostrebored
If you can provide me with any well-done research showing that evopsych is
anything besides the modern phrenology I'd be surprised.

~~~
H0n3sty
Wow, that's a really good question. I'm fairly certain you've done a great
deal more research on this than me. I had to start by finding the definition
of two of the words you used. For the benefit of others who might not be as
well versed...

 _evopsych - psychological traits are evolved adaptations_

 _phrenology - the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a
supposed indication of character and mental abilities_

My previous post was based on information from a recent study on Y-DNA which
indicates a high differential in reproductive rate between men and women, with
men reproducing at a much lower rate. This of course means that reproductive
competition is much higher amongst men (at least in terms of successful
reproduction) and might have lead to the aggressive pruning that we see in the
y-chromosome. I'm also aware that competition has a heavy influence on
evolution and that the sex chromosomes are not really isolated to gender
specific anatomy.

Here's that study:
[http://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.full](http://genome.cshlp.org/content/25/4/459.full)

I found another study (link below) on differences in personality traits across
genders and culture. The authors found gender differences to be most
pronounced in cultures that minimize traditional sex roles. Does this study
fit your criteria?

[http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~ssj/Genderdifferences%20in%20persona...](http://www.cin.ufpe.br/~ssj/Genderdifferences%20in%20personality%20traits%20across%20cultures%20Robust%20andsurprising%20findings.pdf)

With respect to _phrenology_ , I'm aware of studies linking brain size to
intelligence. The meta-analysis (linked below) confirms this and actually
notes a higher correlation among women.

[http://www.govrel.vcu.edu//news/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-...](http://www.govrel.vcu.edu//news/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-
Big%20Brain.pdf)

From your previous post, I'm guessing you might have reason to discard this
type of study. Could you please elaborate and share your thoughts?

