I really don't see the need to get more women in tech. Its obvious from school age that it just doesn't interest them as much. You never hear of the need to get more male nurses, or primary teachers and that is generally not viewed as a problem.
Edit: I stand corrected, apparently there are big movements to get males into the professions I mentioned. Just that I never heard about these movements.
Not sure about male nurses, but not having male primary teachers is a serious issue (at least in the UK). I keep hearing advice about guys getting into teaching kids (or really leading any kids activities) - "don't". Because the expectation is that you're likely a pedophile. Because doing something completely normal that gets some girl at school surprised will cost you time in court and being able to work with kids in the future. I'm not sure how often it really happens (anecdote != data, etc.), but I've heard enough stories of simple actions being misinterpreted with terrible consequences (I was going to teach some kids at the local sport club) that I really wish there were more male teachers. Just to break the idea that it's something unusual.
One of the local stories I heard was about a PE teacher who knocked on the girls' changing room and told them that whatever activities they were doing are starting. He didn't enter, just wanted to get their attention and shouted this through the door. Someone got scared by that, reported that he wanted to enter the changing room and that resulted in lost job - not sure if he was reported anywhere higher in that specific case. (it was mentioned in discussion between coaches, because the local club had changing rooms that had to be used)
Would the same thing happen if it was a female teacher? Probably not. Would it happen with female teacher and boys' changing room? I'd say highly unlikely.
You never hear of the need to get more male nurses, or primary teachers and that is generally not viewed as a problem.
This actually is a common conversation within those fields, and is certainly viewed as a problem in wider society. Some researchers claim that one reason male students underperform in school is due to the lack of adult male role models in the form of teachers. As a male with some experience in education, I have seen first hand how much my very presence in the classroom can inspire young male students. They yearn for more male teachers, and they don't even know anything about education theory or developmental psychology.
Personally, I don't see any reason to get anyone into anyone. Ideally, people should choose what they want to do, whatever interests them. I chose computers because I couldn't get away from them when I was young, and they interested me more than most other things (sports, history, friends, ...). I see no reason why people should be asked to get into STEM. Should they have the opportunity? Of course! Fortunately, social perceptions about geeks are changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang Theory and because of fortunes made with technology (Facebook, Google, ...). But someone who is not passionate about being a programmer/scientist and is only in it for the money, will in average be less successful in it that someone who's passionate about it.
Fortunately, social perceptions about geeks are changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang Theory
I'm not a huge fan of many new action movies, but I'm also quite happy seeing people who (in the past) claimed Tolkien or comic books are for nerds only, happily go to see the LotR and Marvel/DC movies now. Movies these days can be criticised for many things - but putting a strong female character in a sci-fi world from time to time is quite a welcome change. (yeah, I know it's not done properly every time, but the shift is visible)
I agree with the gist of your comment, especially the clause that someone who's not passionate about a field shouldn't be forced into that field. However, I'd like to address some other points.
I chose computers because [...] they interested me more than most other things (sports, history, friends, ...)
This sounds very sad to me. How do you mean that computers interested you more than friends? I don't see how anyone could come to say this.
social perceptions about geeks are changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang Theory
I think TBBT is doing more harm than good to the "geek culture", whatever you want to call the "geek culture". What it's doing is enforce and rehash the stupid "nerd stereotypes" of the old, but somehow present it as "being cool". The world doesn't need that. All cultures need less poseurs, not more.
I said that it "sounds sad to me". You escalated it pretty quickly into "my values are better than your values". Did you even read that one-line comment you just cited?
And I'm not talking about casual acquaintances, nor superficial "friendships". I'm talking about real, deep friendships with other human beings. The human race is a social species. This means that it is in our very nature to spend time with other humans and develop bonds with them. Being without friends i.e. lonely can even be detrimental to your physical health [1][2]. Kids at various ages react largely positively to close interaction with other kids [3]. Lack of friendship was also shown correlated with other life problems and behaviors [4].
This is not an issue of being introvert or extrovert. Saying that "computers interest you more than friends" just sounds very cruel and uncaring of others. It is in our nature to empathize with other humans: extreme lack of empathy is often understood as one of the primary symptoms and grounds fro diagnosis of psychopathy [5]. Of course, not to say anything close of the parent comment, but if you really do care about computers more than you do about your friends (and, I assume, implicitly about other human beings), it is maybe wise to think about why is that the case.
I said that it "sounds sad to me". You escalated it pretty quickly into "my values are better than your values". Did you even read that one-line comment you just cited?
Yes.
Did you read the rest of your comment? you go on to cite a bunch of sources supporting your assertion that you should value friends above all else; then you go on to imply that people who have different values may be psychopaths.
I didn't imply that people who have different values are better or worse than each other. I said that, according to a source which is cited on the Wikipedia page for the topic of psychopathy, lack of empathy is often associated with the diagnosis of psychopathy. Lack of empathy doesn't translate directly into lack of dear friends, but my bet is that it's very deeply intertwined.
I still never implied that my values are better. Psychopaths, for example, often believe that their values and views of life are fine, and that the rest of the world is wrong. I can never say whether it's the psychopaths or the non-psychopaths who get it right. (Without rigorous testing, I can actually not reliably claim I am not a psychopath. For one, my empathy scores are moderately lower than male average.) If most of the world agrees that psychopathy should be treated, and the psychopaths say that it shouldn't, then it still doesn't mean that it ultimately has to be treated. I know this sounds like a ridiculous point, but no values can ever be said to be "better" than other values, because "good" is simply so ill-defined in that context. I'm not saying that the OP of the comment is a psychopath, far from it. What I am saying is that our nature instructs us to be empathic and care for our friends and family, and it's not clear to me what I would have to believe and feel to conclude that I care about computers more than I do about my friends.
Only if you seriously think you can use the psychopath diagnosis without judgment. I suppose that is possible? but it's pretty unlikely.
Even if you are using it in a value-neutral way (and I don't believe you are) you are making a huge jump. For example, some people try to de-prioritize friendships because they have been badly hurt by friends in the past; this is far more likely to happen to a deeply empathetic person.
Its obvious from school age that it just doesn't interest them as much.
[Citation needed]. What you're seeing in school is very likely the effect of early age socialization effects. Which can go both ways, if you look at other cultures, such as Iceland [1]. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "stereotype threat" [2].
You never hear of the need to get more male nurses, or primary teachers and that is generally not viewed as a problem.
As a matter of fact, this is a source of concern in the relevant circles [3, 4]. For example, much has been written about boys not having enough male role models among teachers in schools. It just doesn't get much coverage in the media because, well, these are considered low-end jobs that few people other than those involved in nursing and teaching care much about. In fact, that is a major theme: If a type of job is dominated by women, it's likely to be poorly paid (stereotypically male jobs can go either way).
Not really. There have been monkey studies showing males like physical things like cars and girls like nurturing things like dolls. It's PC to deny genetic differences in play at this point, but it isn't scientific.
This is an often misquoted study [1]. The complete picture is actually different in that the male monkeys had an anti-plush toy bias, but the female monkeys had no clear preference for either wheel or plush toys (regardless of what you want to infer from that):
Mirroring the marked sex difference in infant interactions and children’s toy preferences, male monkeys interacted significantly less with plush toys than did female monkeys. By contrast, males and females interacted with wheeled toys comparably, displaying no reliable sex differences. As is the case with sex differences in children’s toy preferences, only male monkeys showed a significant preference for one toy type over the other, preferring wheeled over plush toys. Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.
So the correct summery would be, male monkeys don't prefer (plushy) dolls.
Which doesn't seem to imply much, especially since many human males (and females!) tend to enjoy Warhammer-esque figures and action figures anyway. In point of fact, the evidence that humans prefer them for the intellectual qualities associated with them shows we have a higher intelligence which can deal with and ignore our primal instincts anyway.
Still, it's not nearly as much as the reverse campaign. I have never received any messaging through media etc. about such a campaign. It exists, in theory.
Edit: It's telling when people downvote a comment that is nothing but a relevant link. This is a situation in which you either have convictions and are willing to defend them, or are knowingly ignorant about the subject and are willing to try to learn and engage in discourse. If those options feel constricting, all you have to do is close the tab.
Well, first off, you're technically correct in the general sense that women don't need tech jobs, and that the tech industry doesn't need women specifically. But STEM does need more people since the number of applicants for STEM jobs is dangerously low in the USA, and our science literacy as a nation is dangerously poor. So since there's all these women on the planet, and they're underrepresented in the STEM field, it makes sense to increase the number of STEM jobs by taking that underrepresented population and moving it toward STEM. Getting more women into STEM helps everyone.
As for why you believe there isn't a demand for these things, it's basically confirmation bias. You don't personally hear a need for more people in these sectors so you assume the need doesn't exist. But in fact there's been a lot more need for nurses in the past decade, so male nurses would definitely be welcomed in terms of increasing the applicants for those jobs. Teachers less so because they have a hard enough time making ends meet with miniscule budgets without adding more teachers to the roles.
All these industries are different and have different motivators as to whom they try to get more jobs to. But behind any great push to get more people into an industry you'll probably find economic motivators, not a demand for social justice. So focus less on the fact that it's women, and focus more on the fact that it's half the population not going after STEM jobs.
Now, STEM is broad, and software development is a different thing. But a lot of people are surprised to learn that the median wage for registered nurses in San Jose ($122,990) is actually higher than it is for software developers in San Jose ($116,610). In San Francisco, dental hygienists earn 106K a year, only a bit less than software developers (110K a year). I don't really have any problem with this, I'm happy that these workers make good salaries, but it is remarkable that we talk about the urgency of getting more people into an field where there is a severe shortage when other fields in these high cost areas earn about the same amount, and perhaps with considerably better career security as you enter middle age.
There are good reasons to want to do one or the other, but I certainly wouldn't say that the intangibles clearly break in favor of software development. Silicon valley leaders act like the shortage of STEM workers or software developers is a foregone conclusion. I'm not saying that there's no case to be made for it, but I the evidence suggests that salaries in software development are not remarkable on average, and there are considerable career risks long term.
We need to consider the possibility that avoidance of STEM is actually a very economically rational decision for a high talent student. It may be why Americans are avoiding the field, and it may be why women are avoiding it.
The issues lies in that working with computers or technology is not "cool." Take a look at movies, television shows, etc. A person in tech is typically classified as a geek, a nerd, loser, etc. Middle school and high school are a big popularity contest, but that's also the age where they are very malleable. Until the negative connotations stop, people will continue to be afraid to enter the tech space.
There are, in fact, some initiatives to try to get more men in to nursing for various reasons. For example, see this (http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/men-nursing). The article has a few references at the bottom which also make for interesting reading.
Of course we come across more articles about women in tech because we frequent tech forums. But the topic (of men in nursing, teaching etc) do come up on the relevant forums.
On the contrary, this is discussed frequently on HN: both the claim that there are no efforts to get men into nursing or primary teaching, and the fact that indeed there are. It gets brought up so often that it's almost a cliché, with people joking about writing bots for it and so on.
Yes, but only in the comments. That doesn't count. I'm saying it's never on the front page of HN because, duh, HN is a technology website. Why would HN care about nursing? Except as a strawman in the comments of course..
I'd wager that most people who read Hacker News spend at least twice the amount of time reading the comments as they do reading the actual articles. The discussion is one of the primary reasons for the site to exist!
Often the comments section is way more informative than the actual article.
I really don't see the need to get more blacks into the middle class. It's obvious from birth that they're just not interested in anything but subservient labor. Why, you can even look at the shape of their skull and see this plain as day.
The difference is that blacks may want to join the middle class. Most women (certainly the ones I have come into contact with) don't aspire to be techies.
That's just abolitionist propaganda trying to upend the proper order of things. These uppity blacks you're talking about? They've just been fed all sorts of wrong-headed ideas from other people. Envy is a sin, you know.
Comments
I really don't see the need to get more women in tech. Its obvious from school age that it just doesn't interest them as much. You never hear of the need to get more male nurses, or primary teachers and that is generally not viewed as a problem.
Edit: I stand corrected, apparently there are big movements to get males into the professions I mentioned. Just that I never heard about these movements.
Not sure about male nurses, but not having male primary teachers is a serious issue (at least in the UK). I keep hearing advice about guys getting into teaching kids (or really leading any kids activities) - "don't". Because the expectation is that you're likely a pedophile. Because doing something completely normal that gets some girl at school surprised will cost you time in court and being able to work with kids in the future. I'm not sure how often it really happens (anecdote != data, etc.), but I've heard enough stories of simple actions being misinterpreted with terrible consequences (I was going to teach some kids at the local sport club) that I really wish there were more male teachers. Just to break the idea that it's something unusual.
I'm curious as to what kinds of actions could be misinterpreted like that. Care to give an example?
One of the local stories I heard was about a PE teacher who knocked on the girls' changing room and told them that whatever activities they were doing are starting. He didn't enter, just wanted to get their attention and shouted this through the door. Someone got scared by that, reported that he wanted to enter the changing room and that resulted in lost job - not sure if he was reported anywhere higher in that specific case. (it was mentioned in discussion between coaches, because the local club had changing rooms that had to be used)
Would the same thing happen if it was a female teacher? Probably not. Would it happen with female teacher and boys' changing room? I'd say highly unlikely.
This actually is a common conversation within those fields, and is certainly viewed as a problem in wider society. Some researchers claim that one reason male students underperform in school is due to the lack of adult male role models in the form of teachers. As a male with some experience in education, I have seen first hand how much my very presence in the classroom can inspire young male students. They yearn for more male teachers, and they don't even know anything about education theory or developmental psychology.
They doesn't seem to receive as much attention as IT and women type conversions. In fact I have never heard a "we need more men in" for any job role.
Personally, I don't see any reason to get anyone into anyone. Ideally, people should choose what they want to do, whatever interests them. I chose computers because I couldn't get away from them when I was young, and they interested me more than most other things (sports, history, friends, ...). I see no reason why people should be asked to get into STEM. Should they have the opportunity? Of course! Fortunately, social perceptions about geeks are changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang Theory and because of fortunes made with technology (Facebook, Google, ...). But someone who is not passionate about being a programmer/scientist and is only in it for the money, will in average be less successful in it that someone who's passionate about it.
I'm not a huge fan of many new action movies, but I'm also quite happy seeing people who (in the past) claimed Tolkien or comic books are for nerds only, happily go to see the LotR and Marvel/DC movies now. Movies these days can be criticised for many things - but putting a strong female character in a sci-fi world from time to time is quite a welcome change. (yeah, I know it's not done properly every time, but the shift is visible)
I agree with the gist of your comment, especially the clause that someone who's not passionate about a field shouldn't be forced into that field. However, I'd like to address some other points.
This sounds very sad to me. How do you mean that computers interested you more than friends? I don't see how anyone could come to say this.
I think TBBT is doing more harm than good to the "geek culture", whatever you want to call the "geek culture". What it's doing is enforce and rehash the stupid "nerd stereotypes" of the old, but somehow present it as "being cool". The world doesn't need that. All cultures need less poseurs, not more.
I didn't think I'd ever cite Maddox on HN, but I agree with him spot on. Take a look: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd
"Your values are different from mine, and that is sad, because my values are better than your values."
I said that it "sounds sad to me". You escalated it pretty quickly into "my values are better than your values". Did you even read that one-line comment you just cited?
And I'm not talking about casual acquaintances, nor superficial "friendships". I'm talking about real, deep friendships with other human beings. The human race is a social species. This means that it is in our very nature to spend time with other humans and develop bonds with them. Being without friends i.e. lonely can even be detrimental to your physical health [1][2]. Kids at various ages react largely positively to close interaction with other kids [3]. Lack of friendship was also shown correlated with other life problems and behaviors [4].
This is not an issue of being introvert or extrovert. Saying that "computers interest you more than friends" just sounds very cruel and uncaring of others. It is in our nature to empathize with other humans: extreme lack of empathy is often understood as one of the primary symptoms and grounds fro diagnosis of psychopathy [5]. Of course, not to say anything close of the parent comment, but if you really do care about computers more than you do about your friends (and, I assume, implicitly about other human beings), it is maybe wise to think about why is that the case.
[1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/conditions/07/27/moh.heal...
[2]: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/study-dont...
[3]: http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/do_kids_need_friends
[4]: http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-importance-of-friendship/000...
[5]: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/j...
Yes.
Did you read the rest of your comment? you go on to cite a bunch of sources supporting your assertion that you should value friends above all else; then you go on to imply that people who have different values may be psychopaths.
I didn't imply that people who have different values are better or worse than each other. I said that, according to a source which is cited on the Wikipedia page for the topic of psychopathy, lack of empathy is often associated with the diagnosis of psychopathy. Lack of empathy doesn't translate directly into lack of dear friends, but my bet is that it's very deeply intertwined.
I still never implied that my values are better. Psychopaths, for example, often believe that their values and views of life are fine, and that the rest of the world is wrong. I can never say whether it's the psychopaths or the non-psychopaths who get it right. (Without rigorous testing, I can actually not reliably claim I am not a psychopath. For one, my empathy scores are moderately lower than male average.) If most of the world agrees that psychopathy should be treated, and the psychopaths say that it shouldn't, then it still doesn't mean that it ultimately has to be treated. I know this sounds like a ridiculous point, but no values can ever be said to be "better" than other values, because "good" is simply so ill-defined in that context. I'm not saying that the OP of the comment is a psychopath, far from it. What I am saying is that our nature instructs us to be empathic and care for our friends and family, and it's not clear to me what I would have to believe and feel to conclude that I care about computers more than I do about my friends.
Only if you seriously think you can use the psychopath diagnosis without judgment. I suppose that is possible? but it's pretty unlikely.
Even if you are using it in a value-neutral way (and I don't believe you are) you are making a huge jump. For example, some people try to de-prioritize friendships because they have been badly hurt by friends in the past; this is far more likely to happen to a deeply empathetic person.
[Citation needed]. What you're seeing in school is very likely the effect of early age socialization effects. Which can go both ways, if you look at other cultures, such as Iceland [1]. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the concept of "stereotype threat" [2].
As a matter of fact, this is a source of concern in the relevant circles [3, 4]. For example, much has been written about boys not having enough male role models among teachers in schools. It just doesn't get much coverage in the media because, well, these are considered low-end jobs that few people other than those involved in nursing and teaching care much about. In fact, that is a major theme: If a type of job is dominated by women, it's likely to be poorly paid (stereotypically male jobs can go either way).
[1] http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1032361...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat
[3] http://www.edutopia.org/male-teacher-shortage
[4] http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2013/02/21/is-the-short...
Not really. There have been monkey studies showing males like physical things like cars and girls like nurturing things like dolls. It's PC to deny genetic differences in play at this point, but it isn't scientific.
This is an often misquoted study [1]. The complete picture is actually different in that the male monkeys had an anti-plush toy bias, but the female monkeys had no clear preference for either wheel or plush toys (regardless of what you want to infer from that):
Mirroring the marked sex difference in infant interactions and children’s toy preferences, male monkeys interacted significantly less with plush toys than did female monkeys. By contrast, males and females interacted with wheeled toys comparably, displaying no reliable sex differences. As is the case with sex differences in children’s toy preferences, only male monkeys showed a significant preference for one toy type over the other, preferring wheeled over plush toys. Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
So the correct summery would be, male monkeys don't prefer (plushy) dolls.
Which doesn't seem to imply much, especially since many human males (and females!) tend to enjoy Warhammer-esque figures and action figures anyway. In point of fact, the evidence that humans prefer them for the intellectual qualities associated with them shows we have a higher intelligence which can deal with and ignore our primal instincts anyway.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundament...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
There are many citations in there. I don't remember who the researchers were though.
You are 100% wrong on the second point, there is plenty of effort to get men into traditionally female jobs like nursing and teaching:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_nursing#Increasing_numbe...
Still, it's not nearly as much as the reverse campaign. I have never received any messaging through media etc. about such a campaign. It exists, in theory.
Outside of HN (and sites linked to from HN), I've never seen a media push to get women into STEM either.
it just doesn't interest them as much
I'd appreciate if you'd read something: http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-...
Edit: It's telling when people downvote a comment that is nothing but a relevant link. This is a situation in which you either have convictions and are willing to defend them, or are knowingly ignorant about the subject and are willing to try to learn and engage in discourse. If those options feel constricting, all you have to do is close the tab.
Not sure why this is being downvoted. It's HIGHLY relevant to the discussion.
Well, first off, you're technically correct in the general sense that women don't need tech jobs, and that the tech industry doesn't need women specifically. But STEM does need more people since the number of applicants for STEM jobs is dangerously low in the USA, and our science literacy as a nation is dangerously poor. So since there's all these women on the planet, and they're underrepresented in the STEM field, it makes sense to increase the number of STEM jobs by taking that underrepresented population and moving it toward STEM. Getting more women into STEM helps everyone.
As for why you believe there isn't a demand for these things, it's basically confirmation bias. You don't personally hear a need for more people in these sectors so you assume the need doesn't exist. But in fact there's been a lot more need for nurses in the past decade, so male nurses would definitely be welcomed in terms of increasing the applicants for those jobs. Teachers less so because they have a hard enough time making ends meet with miniscule budgets without adding more teachers to the roles.
All these industries are different and have different motivators as to whom they try to get more jobs to. But behind any great push to get more people into an industry you'll probably find economic motivators, not a demand for social justice. So focus less on the fact that it's women, and focus more on the fact that it's half the population not going after STEM jobs.
Part of the problem is that it may be individually rational for US citizens to avoid STEM jobs.
At the graduate level, the RAND institute concluded that the American aversion to STEM degrees is rational and market-driven:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP241.html
A professor at the University of Washington, William Zumeta, reaches a similar conclusion
http://www.issues.org/19.2/p_zumeta.htm
Now, STEM is broad, and software development is a different thing. But a lot of people are surprised to learn that the median wage for registered nurses in San Jose ($122,990) is actually higher than it is for software developers in San Jose ($116,610). In San Francisco, dental hygienists earn 106K a year, only a bit less than software developers (110K a year). I don't really have any problem with this, I'm happy that these workers make good salaries, but it is remarkable that we talk about the urgency of getting more people into an field where there is a severe shortage when other fields in these high cost areas earn about the same amount, and perhaps with considerably better career security as you enter middle age.
(see http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings)
There are good reasons to want to do one or the other, but I certainly wouldn't say that the intangibles clearly break in favor of software development. Silicon valley leaders act like the shortage of STEM workers or software developers is a foregone conclusion. I'm not saying that there's no case to be made for it, but I the evidence suggests that salaries in software development are not remarkable on average, and there are considerable career risks long term.
We need to consider the possibility that avoidance of STEM is actually a very economically rational decision for a high talent student. It may be why Americans are avoiding the field, and it may be why women are avoiding it.
The issues lies in that working with computers or technology is not "cool." Take a look at movies, television shows, etc. A person in tech is typically classified as a geek, a nerd, loser, etc. Middle school and high school are a big popularity contest, but that's also the age where they are very malleable. Until the negative connotations stop, people will continue to be afraid to enter the tech space.
Not sure why you are being downvoted, as I can clearly see a media bias. HN is getting very PC.
There are, in fact, some initiatives to try to get more men in to nursing for various reasons. For example, see this (http://www.minoritynurse.com/article/men-nursing). The article has a few references at the bottom which also make for interesting reading.
Of course we come across more articles about women in tech because we frequent tech forums. But the topic (of men in nursing, teaching etc) do come up on the relevant forums.
You actually do. Just not on HN.
On the contrary, this is discussed frequently on HN: both the claim that there are no efforts to get men into nursing or primary teaching, and the fact that indeed there are. It gets brought up so often that it's almost a cliché, with people joking about writing bots for it and so on.
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=men+nursing#!/comment/forever/0/me...
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=male+nurses#!/comment/sort_by_date...
Yes, but only in the comments. That doesn't count. I'm saying it's never on the front page of HN because, duh, HN is a technology website. Why would HN care about nursing? Except as a strawman in the comments of course..
"in the comments" doesn't count??????!!!!!
I'd wager that most people who read Hacker News spend at least twice the amount of time reading the comments as they do reading the actual articles. The discussion is one of the primary reasons for the site to exist!
Often the comments section is way more informative than the actual article.
I really don't see the need to get more blacks into the middle class. It's obvious from birth that they're just not interested in anything but subservient labor. Why, you can even look at the shape of their skull and see this plain as day.
The difference is that blacks may want to join the middle class. Most women (certainly the ones I have come into contact with) don't aspire to be techies.
Very poor comparison.
That's just abolitionist propaganda trying to upend the proper order of things. These uppity blacks you're talking about? They've just been fed all sorts of wrong-headed ideas from other people. Envy is a sin, you know.
Oh come on, you can do better than that.
I'm a programmer, not a comedian. :P