Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Even if I knew any of the answers, why should I explain anything to anyone? I'm not going to apologise for having been born looking like people I admire.

Why would I want to convince someone that they can do something? What if they can't? Did you try to convince your plumber that he might be good at carpentry last time you saw him?

At the end of the day, I don't care whether Jobs, Gates, Woz, and Knuth have penises or not. For some reason you do and I think you should be the one to explain yourself.




I'm not sure if your comment is intentionally obtuse. Nobody is asking you to apologise for being born the majority, and if that's what you took from the parent comment then that's very silly.

Equating gender and profession, also, is very silly.


The comment is essentially saying that if I do great things and become a role model then I'm not welcome because we already have plenty that "look like me".

What else am I supposed to read?

I never equated gender and profession so that comment looks completely out of place.


> The comment is essentially saying that if I do great things and become a role model then I'm not welcome because we already have plenty that "look like me".

The comment isn't about you at all. The OP said we need more role models like Grace Hopper and less like Jobs, Woz, etc. Reading this as "White men should stop aspiring to become future role models" is silly, it's about a desire to increase the diversity of tech role models. It really just sounds like you're playing the victim here, for no real reason?


Come on. If the post wasn't about that then why does it specifically call out four male role models? It could have just left it at Grace Hopper, but no. The post contains more negative than positive by far.


Since the thread is more akin to a trash fire than something of substance, perhaps, I can offer some insight into my comment.

My comment is merely a nod to the notion that I believe we're missing out on brilliant minds that could shape our future. Brilliance and genius aren't confined to a race or gender. This is nothing about being white, and it's not about diversity for diversity's sake. It's more about progress.

We've all benefitted from the aforementioned greats and their contributions. I do, however, think there are some rocks unturned and I'd like to see them given a chance.


The point is that when _anyone_ thinks about role models in computer science and programming, all of the options fit into a pretty small niche. It _is_ relevant to have those examples, because there's a world of difference between nobody having any role models at all, and every role model being from one group.

Think about how much the existence of these role models obviously matters to you, and realise that nobody wants to take that away from _you_, they simply want to give it to other people as well. When I look at the field of programming, I don't see people like me. Things are getting better, but we still live in a world where if you aren't a white man then you have no examples to point to and say "look, I can do this!"

And you might say, "well, I never needed that", and that might be true - I obviously never needed it either - but appreciate that whether you needed it or not, you _had_ it, and a lot of other people do need it, whether white man or not. We all need role models to aspire to. Stop acting like other people getting the things you've always had is taking anything away from you.


Those four role models don't look like me, and I think they're all awful examples of people someone should look up to. But you need to acknowledge both sides. Stop being so stubborn and look at it objectively. We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack. It's tricky business either way. But perhaps it would be better to say that you wish four great role models that look like you also held such prominent mindshare.


>We do need more diversity in role models, however by saying you want less of the current role models you are initiating a direct attack.

Literally nobody is saying this. If people are reading "we should have more role models who aren't men" as "we should have fewer male role models" then that is _their_ problem, not a legitimate point which needs to be debated.


Did you even read the post? It says he wants more Grace Hopper rather than more male role models. It's an absurd and offensive thing to say but unfortunately one which will be cheered in many echo chambers.

Practically speaking, how can anyone make more role models that satisfy some arbitrary appearance standard? The implication is that we have those role models because of their appearance and reject equally deserving ones of other appearances. Again that's absurd and offensive.


"I'd rather have more X" != "I want less Y". This is not a zero sum game.


<throws wrench> ... why does X need role model X? Can't an X have role model Y? Why wait for there to be role model anything. Those who want to come in, come in!


Some X don't. I didn't. Some X do.

Realise that you're talking about human beings, not machines. Human beings are raised from birth in human society and do not make decisions like "what kind of things do I want to be interested in?" in a perfectly logical and informed manner.

When you come across popular figures in any area, if they look like you the immediate reaction is "wow, so I could do that too?". If none of them look like you, then the reaction is not that. You might end up doing that thing anyway - no corellation is 100% - but the idea that children have role models that they can relate to is not some hard hitting hot take.


Who are these people that need a role model? How do you know they even exist? It really sounds like you've just cooked up a theory with no supporting evidence.


I know because, staggeringly, there has been actual research done and I talk to human beings who this affects. Like, literally five seconds on Google Scholar could have answered that question.

Do you have counter-studies to cite, or is just a case of academic consensus not agreeing with you and so being ignored? I'm actually astonished by your responses here. You're writing with an air of superiority and authority while asking basic questions like "Who are these people?" and "How do you know they exist?" which I had assumed were fundamental bases of any legitimate discussion on the topic.


No, it is not a fundamental truth. I haven't seen any evidence. It sounds like you could show me, but you haven't.

My original point was nothing to do with whether such people exist or not, by the way, I'm just asking that question now because you seem to be referring to some research that I'm not aware of.


>Like, literally five seconds on Google Scholar could have answered that question.

You're probably going to consider this flippant, but: Having the same arguments over and over again with people who haven't done any research is too boring for me to be willing to do it again. I have limited time and it isn't my job to google for you. If you were saying "I disagree with the research" or "I have problems with the research" then that's interesting enough to be engaging, but "I am unaware of the research" means we'd just be having the same conversation I've had a dozen times before. No thank you.


> The point is that when _anyone_ thinks about role models in computer science and programming, all of the options fit into a pretty small niche.

Men are not a "niche" and, again, I really don't care that those people all have penises. To equate Donald Knuth and Steve Jobs because of their genitalia is absurd. Those men have actually done things and it is those things that we might choose to admire.


Have you heard of "examples." They are things you provide in order to make your point more clear. Seriously.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: