Hacker News Reader

Comment by SolaceQuantum | Hacker News Reader

Is this actually true? How do we verify this? (Certain portions of engineering have higher women participation rates than men- can we identify a biological cause for this disparity, or that many of the sciences have women on parity or overrepresentation?)

I agree that this is a definite possibility but I struggle to identify a reason to explain the disparities of participation in subfields purely from a genetic point.

View on HN

The basic answer is we don't know, hence why this is such a contentious issue. There are many known physical[1] and psychological[2] differences between the sexes[3]. Boys tend to play with inanimate objects while girls tend to play with dolls and role play. Women tend to be more social, while men are less so. Men with higher testosterone tend to be more aggressive overall[4]. Some think many of these differences are caused by society, while others think that it has to do with an entire chromosome being different, causing differences overall.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

[3] These differences are based on population distributions, and there are plenty of outliers within those distributions, eg. masculine women, feminine men. I am speaking of averages here.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression_and_cr...

Intuitively, I don't understand why computer science engineering would have a lower ratio than engineering in general from a biological perspective. Or physics vs chemistry. Or structural engineering vs electrical. Which of the above fields have to do with playing with dolls vs playing with inanimate objects (are dolls not inanimate objects)? Which of the above fields is more aggressive in the academic pursuit? (I've never considered computer science, with a very low ratio compared to other STEM pursuits, to be more aggressive...)

That confusion is why I'm having a lot of difficulty personally buying that much of the differences can be attributed to biological differences in women and men. I feel like I'm missing some evidence where it is proven computer science is more aggressive than, say, structural engineering- and that's why there is a bigger representation of men in computer science.

> Intuitively, I don't understand why computer science engineering would have a lower ratio than engineering in general

If this graph is real, that's not actually true.

https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/2875/why-did...

The stack exchange has nothing to do with whay I'm getting at here, and I apologize if I've been unclear. Let me say for example, in a 2004 survey... "Women were also employed in higher rates than men in environmental engineering (9% to 4%) and chemical engineering (7% to 4%). However, they were less likely than men to be employed in mechanical engineering (8% to 17%) and electrical engineering (12% to 18%)". [0]

Does this mean that chemical engineering is less aggressive of a field than mechanical engineering? Or that computer science engineering is more aggressive of a field than environmental engineering? Or that chemical engineering is the engineering field with the most amount of doll-like objects being interacted with?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_engineering_in_the_Un...

> Or that chemical engineering is the engineering field with the most amount of doll-like objects being interacted with?

Another reason might be “contact with people” variable. As a programmer I can work the whole day and not interact with anyone, and I like it. I never worked in chemistry or engineering, but if my high-school lessons are any indication, chemistry involves a lot more interactive lab work than say physics and math.

If it's the contact with people angle, has the proportion of women in computer science increased with the collaborative nature of computer programming? Open source initiatives? Can we track the number of meetups, conferences, with the population of women engineers? I'm legitimately curious.

See https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagge... and read the first couple of comments as well which is further back and forth between the two authors.

You are trying to verify an innate property of a person by measuring the emergent outcome of their choices. While this is a good litmus test, I do not think the answer to quantifying this acclimation toward a certain profession is something that can be measured discretely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com