Survey: More Women Are Going Into Programming 280
itwbennett writes: We've previously discussed the dearth of women in computing. Indeed, according to U.S. Bureau and Labor Statistics estimates, in 2014 four out of five programmers and software developers in the U.S. were men. But according to a survey conducted this spring by the Application Developers Alliance and IDC, that may be changing. The survey of 855 developers worldwide found that women make up 42% of developers with less than 1 year of experience and 30% of those with between 1 and 5 years of experience. Of course, getting women into programming is one thing; keeping them is the next big challenge.
And we care because...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we could move the craft forward rather than focusing on the players?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not both? If 1/2 the population feels excluded they certainly aren't going to be helping move the craft forward. Being more inclusive means there will be more brains working on hard problems. That's a good thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.
The entire premise behind "I am offended" or "I feel excluded" is that these are not complete thoughts. The complete thought ends with "... therefore I get to dictate what you can say, how you will think, and how you will live, and if you don't comply, all manner of social pressures will come crashing down on your head."
Re: (Score:2)
It's a spectrum. I'm sure there are people who are offended by things and it would be unreasonable to accommodate them. I don't think that's the case across the board here though. If reasonable changes can be made that make more people feel comfortable and included why wouldn't want to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you care? Worried about competition? Basically, if everything is fair and above board, why only 5% female programmers instead of 50%? And don't blame it on something stupid like "women don't like computers" or "it's genetic". It's purely a social problem, because the percentage has been going down over time.
The reason it's a problem is that we want to treat all segments of the population equally. This is evidence that clearly we don't do this as a society, and that over time we are getting wor
Re: (Score:3)
I certainly care. I love computer science and I would love to do anything that can push the field forward.
Right now, in my college, only 20% of our CS students are female. What this tells me is part of the female population is not as attracted to the field than male. I do not know why. But it means that if we could attract them as well as we attract men, we would have higher enrollments. And so the top 10% would likely to be smarter.
In other word, I care about having more female in CS becasue I am afraid we
Re:And we care because...why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, ah, ah... You can't use male motivations if one cannot use female motivations.
We need to MAKE SURE that there is a 50% male population in those areas.
Isn't that how this works?
Exactly. What can we do to get men to work in management, project management, testing and UI design? If 95%of males don't want to work there, we have to take an honest what drives them away from these fields. I could be those fields are hostile to men's needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:4, Funny)
And over 50% for both genders, while we're at it! Come on, I know we could ultimately have 100% of each gender in any given job. Failure to achieve that is our own damn fault!
Re: (Score:2)
Fractions should be represented by number-neutral pictures, and anyone not doing so violently shamed.
Trigger warning: The word violence is totally gonna come barreling through this post, doing like 40 in a 35.
Re: (Score:3)
Trigger warning: The word violence is totally gonna come barreling through this post, doing like 40 in a 35.
I'm triggered by the word trigger, as it reminds me of big scary guns, and you failed to adequately warn me that said word would be used.
This round of PTSD is all on you, buddy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on a 40 hour week. By law they can not ask you to work longer without overtime in most states, and can not fire you if you refuse. This applies even to exempt workers. The 60 hour work week is self imposed although many companies will mislead workers on this account. If an exempt worker voluntarily works longer hours management will tend to fill in that extra time with more tasks, at which point trying to shrink back down again becomes a problem. The places that do tend to have the longer hours are
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about forcing people to take jobs they don't want. However women are clearly capable of these jobs, and were clearly interested in them in the past.
If there is some biological basis then it does not account why the percentage of female programmers has declined over time, so I seriously doubt it's some sort of innate bias. There's a clear problem, even if you fail to acknowledge it. Why has the percentage dropped? You clearly don't care, but some people do.
There has been a lot of conjecture. And your choice is who you want to listen to.
At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.
Or it might be that women who have now re-entered the workforce voluntarily - as opposed to the "Rosey the Riveter" WW2 example of dire need - to perhaps adjust over time to what they find as a good career path.
Now an analysis of the two "reasons" is pretty important. The "weak woman" model presupposes that any negativity will destroy a woman's passion for the work, as well as ruin her self esteem. It's the same rationale that Barbie Dolls turn young ladies into anorexics.
It also fails because it assumes that the only career field in which there is any form of sexual harassment is STEM. Because I don't hear people whining too much about rampant sexism in the business sector, and there are a lot of women employed there. And if a dongle joke or a image of a Playboy model's face can destroy a young lady's passion for STEM, imagine when she gets to the workforce. You get hammered with more negativity than that every day. If that's the real reason, it makes no sense.
Now the other thesis, which I espouse based on many years of experience trying to recruit young women into STEM fields is that they have seen STEM, and want no part of it. And for much different reasons.
And those reasons are really long hours, mediocre pay, and an utter lack of respect. The image of the geek, working in the company basement, living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew, and working 20 hour days is not terribly inaccurate (I like their Crunchy Jalepeno Cheddar ones myself)
There might also be a correlation with thought process, but it is like walking into a minefield trying to suggest that there is any difference between the way men and women think in general.
But you do not have to invoke the second one, the first reasoning is fine by itself.
In the end, I question not so much why women are not going for STEM careers, but why any men are.
All of this is to say, if there is enough pay and prestige, and pleasant work environment, they will show up. And good luck with the idea of making the geek's work life better. That would cost money, and the woman making that decision might not want to spend it.
Re: (Score:2)
But why did we have so many more women in computing in the 80s and 90s? Why did the "weak woman" appear after that point in time? It's recent enough that we should be able to reverse it before it becomes entrenched.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I see with your "weak women" argument is that you seem to suggest that all of the harassment women in STEM fields is trivial and if that drives you from the field, you are weak.
Wow. It's time for me to just keep quiet about this. No matter how I try to say that women are actually strong, and not weak, I'm wrong. I say they are stronger than the excuses given for them staying out of STEM. It's too confusing to say women are strong, then have people come back to say I'm saying they are weak when I say thyy are not. I give up.
I'll state one last time my thoughts, then go back to the tried and true method of not sharing my opinion.
Real actual sexual harassment should in every c
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They still look pretty similar. Ie, computer help desk support is mostly the same, such as interacting politely with clients and helping the entire company run smoothly. No wait, I guess that did change... But I'm still writing code, it's still in C or C++, still some shell scripting, not doing anything stupid like JavaScript. Of course many of the same women from back then are still in computing, the problem is getting new women into the field.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But... what I don't want to see is the political correctness infect programmer ranks. I like IT the way it is, something akin to the Wild West, at least places I've worked. I don't like working for women because they tend to lean to being PC, overly sensitive. I like the boys' club mentality of IT, always have, always will.
I rejected pair programming because I don't work well sitting next to someone. I rejected the notion of sitting in one open environment to "foster sharing and collaboration". Doesn't work
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:2, Insightful)
All this fearmongering over PC is nonsense. Basically: don't be a dick to people, at least without justification. Don't call women sluts. Don't use racial slurs. Don't be a complete insufferable ass that no one wants to be around. Actually treat others like real people with different personalities, wants, and needs.
That's not being PC, that's being a decent fucking human being.
Jesus whine some more why don't you.
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he's referring to situations like this one:
Three male developers have been tasked with improving the quality of the software systems they're responsible for. They're looking into using the Coq [inria.fr] proof system.
They're sitting together in the office's open workspace discussing this tool. The conversation goes something like,
Programmer 1: "What do you guys think about playing around with Coq?"
Programmer 2: "I've played with Coq for a few minutes, but I don't like it very much."
Programmer 3: "Yeah, I've tried Coq a few times, too, and sometimes it's way too hard for me to handle."
Programmer 2: "Yup, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too."
Programmer 1: "Ok, that settles it. Coq is no good for us, so we won't touch it."
Well, since they're in an open environment, some of their coworkers overhead the conversation. These coworkers include a couple of women, and a male homosexual who is transitioning into becoming a woman, all of whom work in project management and design. All three are extreme feminists.
Taking the discussion totally out of context, these coworkers mistakenly hear "Coq" as "cock", as in penis.
As you can imagine, this brings an extreme level of outrage to these self-righteous coworkers. They think they're hearing sexually explicit, and possibly homophobic, discussion in the workplace. They go to HR, and raise a shitstorm.
HR cracks down hard on the three male programmers, who have no idea why they're being attacked. They try to explain what Coq is, and how it has absolutely nothing to do with penises or sex. It doesn't matter. They dared to say a word that sounds like "cock", and for that they must pay dearly, because coworkers got offended.
Instead of using their skills to improve the products that the customers want and need, the programmers are now stuck fighting political battles over a total non-issue.
I think that that's what the GP was talking about. Situations like those.
Re: (Score:2)
Without exception, the workplaces with women were more "brittle" in terms of having to watch what you said, no off-colour jokes, no crude humour.
Woah, you had to show basic consideration to other people?! You can't be as crass as tactless as you'd like?
I can't imagine how horrible it must have been to be forced to act like a civilized human being 8-hours a day. The next thing you know, they'll expect you to bathe regularly and wash your hands after relieving yourself. Pure tyranny!
Re: (Score:2)
Classic bullshit.
Female behaviour is civilized, but male behaviour is crass, tactless, and rude.
If male behaviour is crass, tactless and rude.. then female behaviour is also equally negative. Perhaps simpering, two faced, and gossipy.
Re: (Score:3)
Female behaviour is civilized, but male behaviour is crass, tactless, and rude.
First, I said nothing about either stereotypical female or male behavior. You invented that all on your own to fit your preconceptions.
Second, the OP is complaining about being unable to engage in "crass, tactless, and rude" behavior. Specifically, "off-colour jokes" and "crude humour". He thinks that "these things are all healthy male banter". Read our posts again. This is pretty obvious.
Essentially, his complaint is that he can't engage in crude and uncivil dialogue in mixed company without facing soc
Re: (Score:2)
We've tilted the system so much, that now, a major majority of college students are now women...we've swung the pendulum so far, that now, it is men that are in danger of not being fairly represented in the upper education system students and grads, it will follow that men will soon likely be left behind in the IT and other tech fields.
While boosting women, it seems that we've also been hurting young men's chances at these fields they used t
Re: (Score:2)
Men are in no danger of being so unfairly represented that they end up underpaid on average compared to women, or having to create fake names and icons for online technical boards lest someone find out they're really male, or being forced out of their profession. And yet there are some morons out there who seem scared of this. They are in an amazingly advantaged group and can not even see it, instead acting afraid that one day they might not be able to tell sex jokes at work as if that is the worst possib
Re: And we care because...why? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are in an amazingly advantaged group and can not even see it, instead acting afraid that one day they might not be able to tell sex jokes at work as if that is the worst possible discrimination.
I had to chuckle at that. Have you ever heard a group of women getting together and either telling raunchy jokes or graphically describig their boyfriend/husband's funy face when he cums? I have.
All of this bullshit is bullshit for very large values of bullshit.
Its like third wave feminism has gone so far around the bend that thy hate a victorian era version of women's psyches. The present day idea that hearing a bad sexully oriented word irreparably damages a women is plain unrealistic.
Women have sex drives
Women have a sense of humor
The two most filthy minded raunchiest people I have ever worked with were women.
Very very few are as pure as the driven snow.
And yet we somehow have follen into a pit dug for us by humorless misandrysts.
My favorite story of the utterly screwed up system we have fallen into comes from my lab's machine shop, where of course, the old days of calendars showing women in bikinis have been utterly banned.
I the pursuit of banning any "offensive images from the workplace, one day, the wrong person saw on the inside of one of the machinists toolboxes, an offending photograph of a young woman in a cheerleading outfit. She went to HR to complain. After all, the obvious sexual undertones of a machinist, and seeinf the tittlation such a person would get from looking at such an offensive image were all there.
So HR aid the guy a visit. Told him the photo was offensive to a woman and must be removed immediately.
His answer - and this is paraphrased, because it became a legend around the place, went something like "I'll take the picute of my daughter, who is a high school cheerleader out of my toolbox when you put out a memo that there wil be no photos of people's children allowed anywhere here."
HR left, with their tails between their legs. I have no idea what they told the offended woman.
But as I have always said about these things, you have to pay attention to who you listen to. Because outraged humorless misandrysts won't ever be actually satisfied. No outraged humorless people ever are.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's only the anti-feminists who keep saying that. It's been said many times, the percentage is just a simple metric that journalists love. What matters to feminists like myself is that there are no gender based barriers, both sexes get equal encouragement and opportunity. Of course that's a really complex subject, and the problem isn't limited to girls.
Also, do you have any data on that imbalance in "management, project management, testing and UI design"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A tremendous number of cultural changes have happened to women since the '50s and '60s when a lot of computing was actually considered secretarial and therefore "women's work", however right or wrong that may be. To ignore those or pretend they happen in a vacuum and can't have any impact on women in the workforce is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
If you provide equal opportunity, and then over time the outcomes become more and more unequal, then I would suggest that the opportunity is not actually equal for some reason. And that is what is happening with women in computing. Outcomes indicate whether the opportunities are working.
I am not talking about the 50s and 60s. I am talking about the 80s and 90s, and not secretarial style computing work. I am talking about the programmers, system admins, and designers which all used to have significant re
Re: (Score:2)
Right. If you are all about equality that is great. Explain then why the equality has dropped over the years.
They don't want the lack of respect from management, the mediocre pay, the crappy work surroundings, and the innsane hours.
Perhaps you might answer a question yourself since you seem to ask a lot of them, and as if there is no answer than different versions of "All IT is sexist assholes".
Tell me why there is no sexism, no good old boys club patriarchy in the fields that women do go into.
Business - now there is a field devoid of any sexual anything. Right? My wife cold tell you tales that would curl y
Re: (Score:2)
You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. I certainly wouldn't call this feller a poofter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/h... [bbc.co.uk]
Oh, and it's salon. A saloon is where cowboys drink.
Re: (Score:3)
Bad example with the nail salon thing. How many men have you seen with fingernail polish? There might be a few gay men interested in breathing those fumes all day, but they're likely employed in nail salons (or more likely own them). That field likely is almost-all-female naturally.
The child-care example is quite valid, however. Lots of men like being with small children, but our culture discourages that as they're seen as potential molesters. Another example is primary education: how many kindergarten
Is it Friday already? (Score:2, Funny)
>> Percentage of uterus-possessing humans in random field annoys SJWs
I didn't realize it was Friday. Please, go on.
Retention is a bigger issue (Score:5, Informative)
I graduated with a masters degree in CS in 2008, and as such now have 7 years job experience. Watching the other women I graduated with it's entirely a retention issue. The reasons for why they left the field were wildly varying, but I only know of two who graduated with me who are still in the industry out of maybe twenty.
Re:Retention is a bigger issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take an informal survey of female programmers that you know (might be a small sample size, unfortunately). Of those who are married, what is the profession of the partner? I'm willing to bet (based on my experience) that the answer is "programmer". Even if the woman is not married to another programmer or engineer, chances are they are married to someone who makes a lot of money. I have *never* met a woman in IT who had significantly more earning potential than their husband.
Which is not to say that I t
More women = good stuff! (Score:5, Funny)
I keep the sexual harassment forms in the bottom drawer of my desk.
That way when a woman goes to get one, I can check out her ass.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Hilarious
Re:More women = good stuff! (Score:4, Insightful)
Like if I were gay and wrote "Oh that's too bad, less cocks to go around." Lighten up.
Re:More women = good stuff! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad joke...smack...bad...
Re:More women = good stuff! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, get over yourself. I'm female and I gave him a mod point for that.
I haven't made use of my fainting couch in years, by the way.
-LaurenC
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, whoops.
The woman giveth, and Slashdot taketh away.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you're replying to me, but I will have you know that my tits were voted the sweetest at the New York State Fair in Twenty-Aught-Three.
To casually pass around a title that some of us have earned, damn it, why that's an insult, you contemptible cur!
And if that was directed at me, apologies in order, and thank you for addressing me by my proper title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't you prefer pics from the aforementioned goat?
Apparently, it must have been a close enough race that my victory is in doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the users profile picture [cdn.meme.am], I do believe we have a celebrity poster on our hands!
Conclusion not supported by given evidence (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that 48% of first programmers are women does nothing to show more women are getting into programming. It is entirely possible (and maybe probable) that it's been 48% for a long time, and what we're seeing is not more women getting into programming but that a lot of them are getting out again quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that it's a natural effect of programming becoming somewhat less of an end unto itself, but as a utility for another career.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that 48% of first programmers are women does nothing to show more women are getting into programming. It is entirely possible (and maybe probable) that it's been 48% for a long time,
It hasn't been. For instance, here's a graph showing CS undergrad degrees [blogs.com] (which ought to correlate a fair bit) plotted against the rate at which women enroll for other degrees. For every other degree there's a steady upward trend, but for women something weird happened in 1984 and they peaked there at about 37%. Last year (assuming I'm reading it right) only about 18% of CS undergrads were women. If there's been a big spike up, that's encouraging to see.
FWIW, I got my degree in '89 and this jibes pretty
Re: (Score:2)
None of your data support your argument that this is a problem though. What if women just aren't majorly interested in programming in IT, just like it seems men are less interested in daycare work ?
What barriers do you perceive for women in IT/Programming ? Because I see none. I see a bunch of folks dumping a lot of good money into "fixing" it though, so I guess there's good money to be made in pretending there is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
None of your data support your argument that this is a problem though. What if women just aren't majorly interested in programming in IT, just like it seems men are less interested in daycare work ?
You are seriously countering objective data with "What if..." and absolutely nothing else? Simply stopping your search for information the instant you hit on something possibly exculpatory is for climate deniers and anti-vaxxers, not a self-respecting nerd. If you think there's a hole there, attack it. Go find yourself some data on women's "natural interests" that controls for societal effects, and throw it up here.
(Hint: unless you are far better at this than I, you won't find it. I've looked. It turns ou
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is, a lot of people in this thread do the whole "assertions" thing and lack evidence.
There's a glass ceiling...except for people like Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton.
There's a brogrammer culture...except nobody's hauled out any proof that this is a thing.
There's evidence that maybe men and women have different preferences in careers...except where there isn't.
There's an overwhelming amount of sexism that takes place in workplaces...except in places that are pretty helpful
Re: (Score:2)
84 was the peak of the first computer gold rush.
The girls were just picking majors based on salary surveys.
Re: (Score:3)
The girls were just picking majors based on salary surveys.
And guys don't do this? You have some data to back this speculation up with? I wouldn't dare make a blanket speculation about jewish people all being greedy or black people all being lazy without even a fig leaf of data to hold up. So why is it OK to do that with a stereotype-based argument about women being greedy and less interested in intellectual pursuits for their own sake than men?
I really don't get this. I don't get why its OK with everyone for an entire industry to be such a huge demographic anoma
Re: (Score:2)
Dimwit, I will explain.
I will use smalls number so you can understand.
There are 2 people majoring in CS, they genuinely like it etc. They are both men (duh).
Now the salaries go crazy and the greedy show up, 4 men and 4 women join the program. What just happened to the skew?
Re: (Score:2)
Dimwit, I will explain. I will use smalls number so you can understand. There are 2 people majoring in CS, they genuinely like it etc. They are both men (duh). Now the salaries go crazy and the greedy show up, 4 men and 4 women join the program. What just happened to the skew?
So you are proposing that in fact the absolute numbers completely changed around in 1984, and that's what caused this? OK...so why didn't you actually go grab those numbers to prove me wrong?
Perhaps because the actual numbers [stanford.edu] don't show that? See, the absolute enrollment numbers for men and women went up during that period for a further 2 years, and then leveled off. There was a bubble there, but it peaked years after the share of women did, and the level on either side in absolute terms was roughly the 19
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look at the decade running up to it, not 2 years. There was a great increase in money chasing enrollment running up to the peak. At 2 year difference in the peak isn't likely statistically significant.
I sat on the floor of the overstuffed lecture halls. EE not CS. But close enough.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to look at the decade running up to it, not 2 years. There was a great increase in money chasing enrollment running up to the peak. At 2 year difference in the peak isn't likely statistically significant.
Again, I'm through chasing zephyrs on this subject. Do you have data that shows "money chasing enrollment"? Because I could counter-speculate that the whole argument is BS, based on specialist doctors and lawyers being options making far more money for about the same intellectual requirements if you don't care about anything but money, and then you could argue they aren't the same because of the extra education required, and we can be here forever arguing over made up BS.
Data, or it isn't an argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, retention is a problem. We are hearing a variety of reasons. Fortunately overt sexism does seem to be declining, but things like unwanted attention, suspicion (some people seem to think all women are litigious or primed to accuse) and poor work/life balance are sill big issues. Of course they affect men as well, but are more likely to make women switch career.
Having said that, the numbers presented here don't seem to tally with the numbers graduating. Could women be switching to programming after gr
Re: (Score:2)
Having said that, the numbers presented here don't seem to tally with the numbers graduating. Could women be switching to programming after graduation?
They actually don't jibe with any numbers I've seen. It was a self-selected internet survey, so about the furthest thing from scientific that could be imagined.
It would be nice if it were true, and we've finally got this issue on the way to being fixed. But the survey just being an outlier seems the more likely explanation right now.
Basement (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do women programmer's live in their dad's basement?
Well, if it tracks the male programming population, probably only about 90% or so of 'em.
Yes, that was a joke... Now you know why I don't make them often.
It's a Miracle Problem Solved (Score:2)
Enough already.
Best and Brightest (Score:2, Insightful)
Stories about women in tech always bring out the best in Slashdot readers.
Re:Best and Brightest (Score:4, Insightful)
Stories about women in tech always bring out the best in Slashdot readers.
It really has gotten to where I dread opening any such story. For everything else, I can find really good insightful commentary. For this subject, it seems like all the moderators are members of the Bobby Riggs [wikipedia.org] fan club.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything relating to race brings out the white supremacists.
That I've seen too. To a letter extent than the mysongony, but it happens. The thing is, the proverbial "racist, sexist, anti-gay..." folks are always here. They post on every story. Browse at -1 and you'll see what I mean. The difference is that on a story like this, the moderators agree with them.
That's the part that's so evil and depressing.
Re:Best and Brightest (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is this misogyny I keep hearing about?
Generally, the guys in these threads are pretty positive on me.
Now, I've been accused of being a karma whore before, and I'm not going to say that doesn't bother me.
But I don't get the sense that Slashdot, or tech in general is any more miserable for women than anywhere else is.
People are dicks to each other sure, and they'll find ways of finding your soft spot. If your soft spot is that you get touchy when anyone insists you're inferior because you're a woman, congratulations, that's where the dicks are going to keep hitting you.
Calling me a "bitch" and calling you an "asshole" isn't worse for me because I'm a woman. Nor is it misogyny (even though the insult was gendered). It was directed at me and only me. And I have no problem with that. You have every right to feel the way about me that you do, as does everyone else on Slashdot.
However, to say that the majority of the Slashdot population has yet to prove to me that it hates women, and I dare you to prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
For the record, here was the entirety of my post:
"Stories about women in tech always bring out the best in Slashdot readers."
And the AC takes this as "being told how horrible we all are by you authoritarian thugs". You just can't be nice to some people, I guess.
The keyword: Worldwide (Score:3)
In other news... (Score:3)
Percentage of Personality Types (INTJ) (Score:5, Insightful)
Intellectuals (NT)
Population Male Female
ENTJ - Chief 4% 5.5% 2.5%
ENTP - Originator 4.5% 6% 3%
INTJ - Strategist 1.5% 2.5% 0.5%
INTP - Engineer 2.5% 4% 1%
All NTs 12.5% 18% 7%
Seems to pretty clearly show why we might have a difference in the number of male vs. female programmers, huh? I doubt the males are forcing personality types on them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are much more interesting numbers than that. IQ is not a good indicator of overall intelligence, but it directly tests a few things like pattern recognition and abstract logic. While the curves of men and women are very close, the curves do NOT have the same shape.
The curve for women is steep while the curve for men is more shallow in comparison. This makes men's IQ more variable than women's (this same variableness compared to women is noted in tons of such charts). In addition, there are more men th
Does it matter? (Score:2)
All this hemming and hawing and yet no one has asked why it is important to force, yes force, women into programming.
What do they offer that is unique?
Re: (Score:2)
So now instead of working with assholes she'll have to look at them.
That she considers this an improvement says just how bad it must be.
I don't believe her. (Score:5, Interesting)
In all my years working in IT I have NEVER seen the kind of behavior that is claimed. Women get out of IT because IT sucks. It's incredibly socially isolating (working with a machine all day). *Most* women want much more inter-personal interaction. That's a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting a 500 error from TFA, I guess the hamster died, but I've seen stuff that puts women off.
At university one lecturer was quite dismissive of female students. Still, that's nothing compared to what a women I met years later told me about. Her lecturer wouldn't help her at all, refusing to explain anything and only working with male students. He was apparently quite openly sexist, although this was eastern Europe and I don't think that level would be tolerated in western European countries.
At work I
Re: (Score:2)
*Most* women want much more inter-personal interaction. That's a fact.
No, its not, Its a either a theory or a belief. If its a belief, then no amount of data will sway you from it. If its a theory, we should be able to test it with data.
Myers-Briggs personality tests measure this exact thing, and are very widespread. The resulting data is that 47.4% of women are introverts (a minority, but barely), while 54.7% of men are introverts (barely a majority). When you add in the fact that there are more women than men, in absolute numbers it should be pretty close to a wash. But a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Programming involves dealing with many sociopaths all day long. The computer is the only honest one out of the bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keeping them certainly is the challenge (Score:5, Funny)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the 80s were a better time. Everything went down the tubes with the invention of grunge music.
Re:Abandon IT (Score:4, Interesting)
They're not going to be tossed out as obsolete. As another poster above noted, women are a majority, not a minority. Just not in actual coding; they're a majority in places in management, project management, testing, and UI design. So the women are concentrating (smartly, I'll add) in things which will be the last things to be outsourced, if ever, and aren't as subject to age discrimination. As usual, this shows that women in general are more social than men, and move into jobs which require more socializing and less of just keeping your nose stuck to a monitor all day, even when it involves working with men who do exactly this.
Re:Abandon IT (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's big disadvantages to that: insane and idiotic government regulations, horrible and shitty software (the government only uses Windows, and loads it down with all kinds of malware), crappy work locations, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, Sheryl Sandberg.
Was so squashed by the word "bossy", she cried all the way up to her high-ranking position in a top tech company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Barriers to women often subtle or invisible (Score:4, Informative)
The main problem is that a lot of firms talk about diversity, but aren't great on actually hiring women in tech. And when they get hired, getting shunted into more "traditional" roles, like being asked to cover the phones or front desk (as a female) when the male interns aren't asked to do that.
I would be really interested if you had evidence of this, because it goes directly contrary to my experience.