Gender in the Internet Age 412
Ellen Spertus writes "The latest issue of the Computer
Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) newsletter
on Gender in the Internet Age is well worth reading for people interested in the dearth of female techies. From the
editors' introduction:
The
purpose of this newsletter is to explore how the Internet and other computing
advances subvert or reinforce gender roles. Will current trends in computing
lead to greater opportunities for both women and men, or will it cement them
in their current roles? Will women be creators of software and virtual
communities, or will they be disempowered users? How will men's and
women's interactions online be different from their interactions in 'real life'?
What changes will propagate from the online to the real world?"
Gender neutral (Score:2)
Live is easier that way.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
A truly equal opportunity workplace (Score:3)
Ultimately, one is judged here by what he/she/it (gotta love inclusive language) can code...
Responsibility (Score:3)
With teleworking/networking and working from home, on the increase, plus the huge rise in internet related consultancy and the slow demise of the voice phone it should in theory make the internet more genderless, as someone has already suggested I too consider everyone on the net genderless until I meet them irl, of course 9/10 I know their gender but it makes zero difference.
I also know that a lot of companies (like mine) are actively trying to find female staff, which is easier said than done. I don't think gender on the internet will make any difference at all, it's the workplace, managers, and HR depts that have to change,
The thing that worries me most about the internet and human interaction is the responsiblity aspect. It's incredibly easy to be completely anonymous on the internet, as far as the average user is concerned anyway.
This in turn means that anyone who wants to can completely re-invent themselves to be whatever they so choose, and the only thing you can really do is either a) accept everything as truth or b) doubt everything.
It looks as if doubt everything is going to be the norm, and I think that's very sad. It's an indication of the state of general society that people feel they have to do this (they always have to a certain extent, but not as much as now).
People are going to get hurt, and with the move/transition of official functions moving to the internet this could also be damaging for official lines too. It's much easier to spoof an internet document at the moment than it is an official document, although there are many many technologies to combat that.
I don't claim to have any idea about how to put the personal reponsiblity back into users, but I do worry about the validity of the kinds of people I talk to every day.
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:4)
Hedy Lamarr (besides being a sex symbol) helped design and patent spread-spectrum wireless technologies [ncafe.com] that were half a century ahead of their time. If you have a PCS phone or 802.11 networking (among other products), you have her to thank.
There are lots of female pros in even the modern sysadmin game. 2 of my most prized sysadmin books were either written (ORA's Unix System Administration) or co-written (USAH, or the Red Book) by women.
Think before you speak.
Your Working Boy,
Come on! (Score:4)
Note: this post not for the humor (or humour) impaired
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
Women have already had significant influence on the Computer Revolution, especially Grace Hopper.
Strange ... I've met quite a few, including maybe 20% of the PhD students at Georgia Tech's College of Computing...not to mention a large number of professors...
I think we're just beginning to see this change, at least in most of the world.
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
The things that influence a geek to become a geek are influenced by more than just the geeks themselves. It's also how we are viewed by society. And your image of yourself and how you want to fit into that society.
No one told me unix sockets were sexy, I just felt they were. But how do you explain to a non-geek why? Like explaining to your parents why VA will take off like a rocket when it IPO's... But would a young girl think to themselves 'I want to be just like Mathew Brodrick in WarGames!' Very doubtful. Or the Angelia Jolie in Hackers?
It's changing the image of the geek, and making it a bit easier for women to feel comfortable in the geek image. This could be a starting place, so geek girls wouldn't feel all out of place when they are discussing TCP/IP flags with friends.
And remember Ada Lovelace, the first hacker...
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Re:Gender neutral (Score:3)
Given two people, with equal technical backgrounds, most techs will think a female would be the nicer one than the male. hence, she has a small advantage. Also, managers prefer at least one women in a team so it isn't quite so lopsided.
The problem starts much much earlier than getting a job. You can get a job by just being able to pronounce unix these days. (ugh). It starts in school, and where interests lie, and what they want to do when they grow up. not after they are in the field.
The job market in any IT profession is very very strong, so don't say 'they can't get a job'.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
womyn and computers (Score:3)
seriously though, you are defined more by what you say you are not than what you say you are. by saying that they are co-opted out of computing, they legitimize the status quo. they want to stigmatize it, but what do they contribute in return?
what the hell is "women's computing" anyway??!!
C++ for Women?
HTML for Women?
Cosmo Online?
subscribe linux-kernel-for-women
technology itself is genderless.
the content you make of it is the responsibility of the author.
soooooooooo... why don't they make some useful content instead of bitching?
-l
Reasons for stereotypes? (Score:4)
Unfortunately, My experience is that it is true. Whether this gender segregation is based on a great conspiracy or whatever, I think it tends to occur because of the way Western cultures tend to work. I can only really speak for American culture, though.
If you look at the statistics on a recent /. article about characteristics of programmers, you will note that they score an I and a T on the Myers-Briggs almost all the time. If you expand to all enginners, you will find the same trend, but not as pronounced. The problem is that on about 20% of the population is an introvert (I), and only 20% of women are in the thinking (T) category, while closer to 80% of men are. 20% of 20% is about 4% of all women are likely to be interested in these fields. (Yes, I know statistics don't work like that, but I am simplifying.) In contrast, 80% of 20% would be 16% of all men. This would make men 4 times as likely to enter these fields if these numbers were fairly accurate.
What all that gibberish meant, was that only a Very small subset of women have the personality traits that are typical in these lines of work. Add to that the fact that many families and communities have strongly discouraged women from scientific and engineering fields in the past, and of course you have a gender imbalance in the originators of this medium. This leads to a mild chain effect that makes the female presence on the web seem smaller. Our American culture also pushes down sexist ideas from mainstream view for either sex, but there are a lot more men who are long time veterans of the net than women, for the reasons detailed above. You'll notice that the very sexist issues that come up on the net are usually porn related. Porn is almost entirely directed at men, straight or homosexual.
The end result of all of this is that it is easy for feminists and Femi-Nazis to feel that women are discriminated against. The only areas of the net where gender counts at all are usually targeted at men. This is simply because there have been more men in the past. It is changing, but change always takes some time, especially when it is to a community, even one that changes as quickly as the net.
B. Elgin
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
As recently pointed up by Nitrozac (herself a major geek-babe) in After Y2Y [geekculture.com]. This [geekculture.com] is their first "in-person" appearence in the strip.
Hedy Lamarr (besides being a sex symbol) helped design and patent spread-spectrum wireless technologies that were half a century ahead of their time.
Not that far ahead. Her scheme for spread spectrum (also known as frequency hopping) involved synchronizing frequencies using player-piano rolls. She in fact got the idea while playing a piano duet with one of her children. A truly innovative idea, but one well within the technology of the time.
Re:Gender neutral - Matrix Quote (Score:2)
--
Gonzo Granzeau
On-line usage.... (Score:3)
There have been several media related technologies advanced signicantly by the search for porn. An excellent example is VCR's. Guys bought the VCR's, the guys programmed the vcr's, the girls said 'wow these are useful!' and use them as well. Now, it is a gender neutral technological item.
The same thing will happen with the internet eventually. Many girls I know are involved in using their computers for their own purposes, but very few use their computers solely for porn. However, I've met a few guys who have bought cluster arrays to store their porn. Hell, look at Cobalt's major vendor, it's porn online!
Anyway, once again, another modivating factor for men to get online (free porn!) and another modivating factor for women to turn gay (ugh. horny geeks.)
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Clueless? (Score:3)
Since when does software creation and virtual communities = empowerment? Or being a user suggest being disempowered?
Women have the highest number of college graduates both for undergraduates as well as Ph. D and Masters Programs. Just because many women prefer fields other than software engineering does not imply that they are disempowered. Check the graduate rolls for Med. Schools, Law Schools, and Business Schools.
LetterRip
Why so few women in the industry (Score:5)
There are two types of people in the computer industry: People who are there so they could make lots of money, and people who are there because they 'identify' in an odd way with computers. they feel they BELONG with computers. Going back to the columbine thread a long time ago.. why do people identify with computers? because they were social outcasts! I was a social outcast as a kid, but most girls don't experience being an outcast the way most boys do, and thus they never will turn to computers and develop the interest that leads them into a career in computers.
If we assume this is true, it'll take a MASSIVE social shift before women will become equally represented in the computer industry. We can throw millions of dollars at the 'problem', and although it may encourage a few women to become techies, for the most part it will be a failure.
FYI: Female Geeks Pages (Score:3)
This is just with five minute's looking.
Ain't I a woman? (Score:3)
I'm really puzzled by the ambivalence towards actively encouraging women to be interested in computers, math, and science. We're talking about actively, though perhaps unintentionally, telling half of the world's human population, No, I'm sorry, this isn't your area. You don't belong here. Why, in the name of whatever, would we want things to remain that way? Why doesn't it bother people more?
For myself, I'm a late-blooming geek, coming to realize that computers, logic, and "let's take it apart to see if it breaks or if we can put it back together" is a hell of a lot of fun. I wish I'd been into this sooner. How many more like me are there out in the world? Perhaps we need to stop thinking of this as a male/female thing (dualism sucks, anyway), and think of it more as a distributed computing thing. If we actively encourage women to take an interest in computers and technology, we'll have that much more brainpower working at problems, and therefore, probably solve those problems that much faster.
I also don't buy the theory that if women were truly interested in computers, they would have found some way to wiggle their way into the field, come hell or high water. It can be damn hard to make your way into a field you think your friends or parents or society disapproves of. If we introduced women to computers as a tool they can use and not a scary piece of equipment only men can handle, and kept trying, even if there were no immediate results apparent, I bet there would be a slow but steady swell in the number of women in computer science.
One of the worst parts about trying to be a woman who works with computers is putting up with all the damn men....
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:2)
Probably not that many -- perhaps the reason I spend somewhat too much time on Slashdot is that I no longer want to -- but this answer doesn't explain why this is even more true of women than men. If I had to give a couple of hyphotheses, I would say that a) as nurturers, women are more empathic, and computers are absolutely emotionless; and b) men are more oriented towards demonstrable achievements, and achieving some programming goal is such a thing.
Re:A truly equal opportunity workplace (Score:3)
Then you look at how to get people into it. I think a lot of it comes down to lack of role models. I mean, think of it, how many female geek heroes do you have? I'm not talking about dead pioneers or women who helped with ancient inventions, I'm talking about people in the programming community who are famous, who get mentioned on Slashdot with reverence, like an RMS or an Alan Cox or even maybe someone less well known, like Miguel de Icaza or Alfred Kojima. There are probably a few (I can't think of any off the top of my head), but not many. Who do the women look up to? The men, right? But what's that say?
Technology, I will agree, seems like an equal opportunity workplace, but then again, so does secretary. So why aren't more men secretaries and more women geeks? History, tradition, culture. Maybe that will change. I don't know, but just because the field is open doesn't mean it works that way.
A few miscellaneous notes (Score:2)
It is quite interesting to see how so far there has been very little evidence that anyone has even started to read the articles before posting a 'response.'
Anyway, does anybody remember the early history of computers, and the dearth of female computer programmers and users? Quite interestingly, women were there from the beginning, it was just that the men writing the histories made the decision to only focus on the men and their machines... Even though the first programmer was female, and the people responsible for making ENIAC (or was it UNIVAC?) work were almost all women.
Gender bias is real, and a serious problem. Take a look at the article on on line communication [cpsr.org], and the different problems that are found in this supposedly 'equal' communications medium.
A person will remain biased whether they are communicating via a centuries old medium or a supposedly blank tabula rasa.
Slashdot is a pretty clear case in point, and fits very well within the descriptions of the masculine culture that dominates the internet today, according to that article.
So who the heck am I? (Score:3)
I try to judge people by what they say and do, ie: what I can see of their work on the net. How can you do otherwise? If you thought someone had a great web page and said 'man, this person is a great designer' but then found they were ugly, old, young, gay, lesbian, or without a formal design education, would you recant?
I agree that the net's interactions with people (employment wise) are not necissarily "real life", however, I do use my 10+ years on the net and interactions with people on the net to help me in "real life". If someone is a great coder I don't give a flying fuck if they turn out to be a 12 year old colored quadrapledgic (who can't spell) or a 90 year old lesbian great grandmother. Their works are their portfolio.
I think we should all learn to deal with people in this way (or like this).
Hehehe, "Everything I learned about dealing with people I learned from Internet Chat rooms"
Example (probably offtopic, but....):
A while back I heard of a game company looking for a modeller. They said basically, send us some work, if we like it and it rocks you're hired.
No resumes, no interviews, nothing. They could end up hiring a 10 year old who has been playing with a pirated copy of 3ds. So what.
Example 2: I was hired 2 years ago by my current employer as a perl programmer. I had a degree but they didn't care about that, I had some OK C/C++ knowledge, but my perl experience was about good enough to do a hello world but thats it. But they didn't look at education or what I could do, they wanted me for what I had the potential for doing.
This is what I like to see
A fault of cultural conditioning (Score:2)
I met a young lady a number of years ago when I was a freshman in college who was a first year computer science student. She thought that a computer scientist was a person who was really good at "USING" a computer. It is as if the word "science" went in one ear and out the other. She had no idea that her first course in computer science was not a course in how to use a mouse, but rather in how to write a program. She dropped out after two weeks in the CSci program. Another young lady I met thought that computer viruses "just happened when a computer got sick." Her jaw hit the floor when I told her that people write them. Another case of missinformation or lack of information.
I am not trying to make a generalization about all women, but the majority [not all mind you] of women I know in computer science are in it because it is a good vehicle for expressing mathematics [data interpolation etc.] or because it is a booming field where the money is good or because it is a science field where, if they excel, they can stick it to "the man", literally. But you know what? I think that the majority of men I know in computer science are the same way. I know people who are seniors in computer science who have never used a data structure more complicated than an array because they can't comprehend what they are studying. They are, on the other hand very good computer techs and "USERS", but they are in no way innovative or artistic or inventive and they stumble through their classes getting pity "C's" from their profs. They like games and they like the money they will make pretending to work while their cubical mate pumps out code. [We all know code whores (excuse the language)]
Some of the best mathematicians I know, by the way, are women. It seems that in general that women are just a predisposed as men toward excellence in mathematics, yet more men seem to be interested in it. You know back in high school all the boys took shop and all the girls took Home Economics [except the guys looking for easy grades and looking to hang out with girls.] I am trying to point out that cultural conditioning is more of a factor than biological imperative. If I spent all of my time writing poetry and baking cookies as a young boy because everyone told me that is what young boys do I bet you I too would have a very difficult time with calculus and I would say "Math sucks" or "its too hard". I also know many computer techs and self proclaimed programmers who can't pass a basic algebra class, not because they are dumb but because they don't know how to apply themselves.
One thing I try to do when I meet someone who asks what I do is explain what computer science is. Is start by describing all of the ones and zeros [current no current etc] going on in the computer and then I continue to describe the layers of abstraction that the data goes through. I then go on to describe what coding is and how it is really an artistic endeavor. I show them that I am a computer scientist because of the beauty I see in programming, not because of the money and not because I am obsessed with technology [I have problems setting up my own modem for god's sake, but I sure could write a nifty data transmission program.] Usually their response is awe followed by "wow I didn't know that computers were so cool", [this coming from religion and english majors.
Those of us who consider ourselves "nerds" need to inform the public as to what our passions are. This too could be a reason that many women seem to be in it for the money and if they don't suceed right away they don't continue. They don't see the beauty in it because no one has ever shown them. We are all too busy showing off our new 1000 function calculator's functionality to describe to them "why" it is a work of art and why our scientific pursuits are so worth while and beautiful.
I probably just ranted and didn't make any sense. I just want to say that we as humans shouldn't accept any biological restraints that physiologists, psychologists, doctors, religious leaders, or scientists put upon our physical potential. People said that it wasn't possible for mankind to run the mile in under five minutes and now everyone's grandma can do it. We limit what we can accomplish by accepting bounds to our abilities. Don't listen to other people telling you what you can and can't do just because they cant do it. [I realize that not everyone can jump high enough to slam dunk a basketball, but some martial arts experts would argue with that.]
I'm sorry that this is so long but it needs to be said, and if someone else beat me to it, oh well, redundancy isn't so bad.
Random Task
Re:A truly equal opportunity workplace (Score:3)
What do you mean "should be"? If you mean, "would be expected to be", I would wholeheartedly agree, but suggest you say what you mean more clearly. It's very easy to read your statement as a call for people to make it the case that the internet is equal for both men and women. Of course, you can't make it equal for men and women unless you know who everyone is, so you'd have to keep track of who's a man and who's a woman.
But if you do that, then it's not level. The key to equality on the internet is that you can't tell who is a man or a woman. I happen to use my real first name, which is identifiably male for most english speakers. I sometimes use names that aren't identifiable re gender.
Quite often it happens that you can guess someone's gender based on word choice and phrasing. Sometimes you guess because "no guy would be interested in that" or something. But this is nearly impossible in doing actual business.
Preserve the anomynity and you will have an area for complete equity. But remember: "the promise of america is equal opportunaty, not equal outcomes" (bill clinton quote, if you can believe it). Women (even feminazis) don't seem to have a problem with saying that women tend to have better taste for design and art type stuff (for example). I suspect that it will come out that men are (on average) more attracted to programming and related fields, and I suspect that feminazis will take this as proof that "the system is unjust".
But who cares? If they could code, they'd have better things to do than scream about the system being unjust.
Bull, CS is a boys club (at least in systems) (Score:2)
You're grossly wrong. Men and woman aren't just different physicaly, they are also different emotionaly.
You could (and some on this thread have) argue that woman aren't as inclined to think purly logicly, thus explaing the lack of interest in math and computers. But I won't touch that with a 10 foot pole and it just doesn't seem to hold up in my personal experience.
What does hold up is personalities. Particularly how men and woman collaberate. Men tend to be more confrontational. They are more likely to say "that's the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard" and respond aggresivly when told such a comment. Women build concensus, are more often self critical and don't respond well to agressive criticism.
That being said I think there is merrit to the criticism of Computer Science as a boys club with macho programmers who talk about the need for more "CS chicks." The aditude is at least half of the problem.
Blindfolded internet (Score:2)
No one on the internet cares if you're male or female, and they won't know unless you use your real name. And they will never know what your race is unless you tell them. But even if you do, they won't care. This is why I think it's so ironic and sad that Jesse Jackson is decrying internet racism.
This is the purest meritocracy. You have to earn your way on your own. You won't have gender or race to help (or hinder) you.
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:2)
BTW, there are two types of people in the world. Those who believe there are two types of people in the world, and those who don't.
Bah! (Score:2)
Seriously, you've got about a 90% chance that anyone you meet on the Internet claiming to be a woman is actually a man with an agenda. Think about that real hard before agreeing to meet anyone (Fortunately not the voice of experience talking here.;)
Re:What does it matter? (Score:2)
I saw that study (Score:2)
Links directly to the articles (Score:3)
Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter [cpsr.org]. Here are some pointers to the articles that I think would be of most interest to slashdotters. (Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the newsletter.)
On pr0n (Score:3)
On a side note, notice how at least 90% of the pr0n on the net is very low-quality stuff that usually ends up making you just go "Eew!"? I'm thinking that life's too short to wade through all those bad images for the few good images that are out there. To that end, I think and "Internet Pr0n Review" web site should be set up in order to review all the Pr0n on the internet at any given time (And possibly even dead tree pr0n as well.) How's that for a business model? All I have to do is start it off and wait for the IPO.
A Sad Truth (Score:2)
I've worked in a lot of environments, some of which quota'd female hirings in tech depts. and I've yet to see the "female geek".
Most women in the field don't know a ftp client from a telnet client. It's not that they're any less "smart" than the men, or don't have the problem solving skills. It's just they don't have the "I lack social life, so computers define my existance" intensity some males in the field have.
As long as men code the games, apps, PCs, it's all going to be male oriented.
Two things (Score:2)
1. Women are discouraged from become technogeeks by friends, family, school, society. Especially if they are considered pretty.
2. Being a technogeek is more encouraging for certain types of personalities/traits. These traits have shown up in men more often than in women, either due to social conditioning or due to minor genetic differences.
Still, all in all, it reminds me of when the CAF did testing of women pilots versus male pilots. They found that women pilots were better pilots, especially of fighter jets. BUT - very few people can pass the tests to become pilots - you need spatial conception skills for example - and so, more men could become pilots than women. The same probably applies to women technogeeks. As a women surgeon was saying on NPR yesterday: "You have to be twice as a good a surgeon than a man would be if you're a woman, to be considered to be adequate. Luckily, it's not that hard to be twice as good."
Oh I don't know (Score:2)
Video Games (Score:2)
she's going on about how there's no good female role models in video games.. but then she says there's Lara Croft.. but THEN she say girls don't play video games so it doesn't matter if there's a good role model because the girls will never see it.
but she didn't say that before going on about how since lara croft has big boobs, she must just be a sex object and is a bad role model.
in this they convniently ignore almost all video games that have good female role models and focus on the games they see when first walking into a video game store and then assuming all video games are like that. Take RPG's - although there is usually a male lead in RPG's, there are plenty of strong women, from Rinoa in Final Fantasy to Vandal Hearts II, which has roughly equal male to female ratio in your party, and all the women start off as straight out fighters.
But of course male to female ratios in computer games has NOTHING to do with how many females are in tech industries - people who play video games don't necessarily go on to learn more about computers (how much computer knowledge do you REALLY need to use the N64?) nor do people in the computer industry always play computer games (I don't - but with my significant other working for RPGamer.com and all I know enough about video games to prove my point)
Female IT graduate rates dropping (Score:2)
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
Many women are making such useful content. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; those who can't do either become sexist bigots, like the feminists whose works are cited in the article.
I suspect that the reason women do better in academia while men do better at standardized tests and in real-world jobs is that it's easier to rig the academic system to favor a preferred sex. We can dole out special favors to girls on report cards, but businesses can't afford to do that and objective tests can't practice such discrimination.
The point of the great majority of feminist activism is that rights are for women, responsibilities are for men. Then they complain when more men take on responsibilities in the computing industry.
To hell with the sexists.
--
Re:Gender neutral (Score:2)
It *sounds* like you're trying to bring in a catch-22 accusation. You're claiming that most people who treat others equally are prejudiced. Since of course *not* treating people equally is discrimination brought upon by prejudice, there's really no way to be innocent according to you. It's prejudice no matter what one does.
By the way, just where are your figures for claiming that the biggest presence of women on the Internet is in porn? It sounds like an impossible comparison to make--one must wonder in what units the "presence of women" can be measured so that it can be compared to the amount of porn on the net.
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
Challenge!!! (Score:2)
First one to come up with a good, reliable algorithm to determine the sex of a web-page author, feel free to tell me and I'll buy you a beer. :)
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:2)
Right, but why is it way? There are as many female social outcasts as male social outcasts, but we are encouraged to handle our 'outcastness' in a different way. When I was a kid, I was encouraged by my parents, teachers, scoutleaders and friends to adopt hobbies around electronic, mechanical and scientific things. I was discouraged to pursue art or literature.
The women I knew were directed in the opposite way, to pursue art and flowers, and NOT pursue science, math, electronics and mechanics.
The genderization of technology goes far beyond the fact that we were social outcasts in High School (And come on, everyone thinks that they were an outcast in HS, it is what HS is all about).
-= Stefan
Re:Female Slashdot Readers: Your attention please (Score:4)
Invisibility: Some games contain no women characters at all--many sports simulations are typical of this absence. Girls and women aren't included in such games as the NHL Hockey or NFL Football.
Fancy that. Those male coders out there are writing games meant to be as realistic as possible and they're not putting female hockey players in an NHL game? Those bastards!!!
Tomb Raider 's Lara Croft (with 36-24-36 measurements) promotes an image of femininity nearly unattainable by most girls.
How many fat-ass geek boys with cheeto dust on their scraggly beards get to star in videogames? The male body as portrayed in videogames is unattainable as well. Not even with steroids could a guy end up looking like good ol Duke.
Sure, we all "know" that duke and lara aren't real, aren't meant to be real, but if we are going to throw up our hands about body image, let's not forget boys -- there have been plenty of studies showing that boys and girls are pretty much equally subject to body dysmorphia. Since the standards are different, the effects are different -- bulimia vs steroid use.
I will go out on a limb and say that this particular article, though, is not as bad as these two quotes represent. However, it has a tendency to fail to call on real data, instead using dubious logic and/or anecdote-style "proof".
Some of the articles are more interesting -- actual research documenting female behavior online, or good ideas about the real problem (fewer women going into science and engineering).
If you are a man reading this and you are particularly clever, you will have noticed that I have a gender-neutral login. Whatever you think is the reason for this, you'll probably be wrong.
Here's a theory for you -- our good buddy and cybergod Steve Wozniak left coding to give something back by teaching. Do you think maybe that there is a form of reverse sexism that discourages boys from going into such non-macho fields as education? I've seen quite a few posts on slashdot from tech support guys who say that they feel quite rewarded when they educate a customer about this or that...perhaps their true calling was teaching, but they were discouraged. Maybe this is the reason that there is a bias -- it's not that there are no women in tech, it's that there are no men in other women-dominated fields. Polarization from multiple forms of sexism.
Amanda G.
There is no sig
Get ready for 1000 comments on this one. (Score:2)
There's just so much to say on this subject... (Score:5)
Frankly, the idea of "gender issues" gives me hives. Clearly, in an ideal world career opportunities would be available strictly based on ability and performance. Relative to a community, we might speak in terms of esteem and contribution rather than opportunity and ability. That we do not live in an ideal world, and that "gender" as such plays a role in these things is self-evident - and unfortunate. But it is easy to over-analyze this fact to the point of absurdity, and to overstate the problem to the point of untruthfulness. I think that is what has been done in this issue of the CPSR newsletter.
I put "gender" in quotes because I'm a bit of a language purist. I believe that current trends in the development of English tend to make it a clumsier and less expressive form of communication. I therefore strongly dislike the use of "gender" to mean "sex." Not so long ago, "gender" was a strictly grammatical term, and "sex" was used to denote both the act of copulation and la difference. Somehow, in the process of the societal changes that made copulation so free and easy (in theory anyway), "sex" lost it's second meaning. I'm sure that a contributing factor is that there is no gender in English, and where it does occur it tends to be in loan words or neologisms from Latin. An irritant, nevertheless.
I only had time to read the introduction and selected articles, but if the sort of research exemplified by this article [cpsr.org] is any sample, the data presented is virtually worthless. The information presented about "Women's Language" vs. "Men's Lanugage" in online interactions, for example, is nonsensical. It is:
- Dated - the data are from 1994. This is an eternity online. Does the author really imagine that nothing has changed since then?
- Subjective - An example is "Explicit justifications" under Women's Language vs. "Presuppositions" under Men's. Well, maybe the author thought so. But anyone who routinely interacts with MOTOS, and is paying attention, knows that each sex possesses its own set of presuppositions which are often so ingrained as to be invisible to the individual. Besides, justifications can only go so far. Behind every justification is a set of presuppositions. Formally, these are called "axioms".
- Inaccurate - According to this table, women do not engage in humor or sarcasm online. Apparently these people have never met my wife, or the women with whom she interacts online - or, for that matter the women with whom I interact online. I could say the same about some the other characterizations.
Actually, every "fact" presented in this article is contradicted by my personal experience. While the latter necessarily constitutes nothing more than anecdotal evidence, I would expect that I would encounter at least some examples of the general case! I participate in discussion groups on a number of topics ranging from Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Renaissance Faires to PC games, to the panoply of topics on Slashdot. In every instance, where the topic may be expected to be of equal interest to both sexes, there is equal or superior representation of women both numerically and in terms of participation.One irritating assumption is that it is necessarily a Bad Thing that women are underrepresented in the technical occupations. Why should that be perceived as a problem? Is there a great deal of concern over the preponderance of women in the teaching profession? Or nursing? As small-business owners? As recipients of college degrees? As moralistic nationally syndicated talk show hosts?
I don't know why the fact, evident from centuries of experiences of both sexes, that men and women do not think the same way, have different priorities in life, and find different things to be interesting, should be so disturbing. Women as a group are simply not interested in things geekly. I received my bachelor's degree in 1985 from a small engineering college on the East Coast. Formerly a men-only institution, they had been co-ed for at least 10 years by the time I matriculated. The male-to-female ratio was 7:1, and from what I hear this hasn't changed. Similar trends obtain nationwide. There is no bar, either legally or socially, against women attending these institutions. They don't want to.
(As it happens, my own social circle in college was split between the sexes roughly 50-50 as is my group here at work, so I obviously know a large number of women who are interested. I speak in the general case.)
I can only conclude that the author of this particular article, and the others in this issue of the CPSR newsletter, feel they have some vested interest in generating a sense of sex-based exclusion in online interactions that does not in fact exist. I decline to speculate on what that might be. I do think that as a result their views are not worthy of serious consideration - and certainly not of affecting public policy - unless they can assemble a more compelling set of data.
Re:womyn and computers (Score:3)
"Those goddamn sexist women. Getting all uppity about how 'things aren't fair for us.' They don't have any skills and can't teach (despite the fact that many forms of feminism are academic movements by college professors- see my next point).
"I hate how the whole academic system is a conspiracy against men- all those dumb women who get special favors on their report cards piss me off. Clearly they're stupid- I mean, after all, they don't do as well as us men on standardized tests, and they aren't as successful in business, so they must be just idiots.
"The great majority of feminist activism is so dumb, those stupid women. I did an exhaustive study of feminist literature and concluded that the great majority of it is just arguing that men are stupid- I can't believe those stupid women would be so stupid! (By the way, my 1000-page rigorous study of the field is being published in March- here's a web link to it.)
"I hate sexist people."
Moderators- before you mark this post 'flamebait,' reread the post I'm responding to. Thanks.
Re:The first computers were women (Score:2)
"Computer" was a job description, like "welder", "janitor", or "secretary", and consisted of performing arithmetic calculations. Some were employed by the government (which also employed welders, janitors, and secretaries) but for the most part they existed in those segments of private industry that required numbers to be crunched. As with any job outside the home in the early part of the century, they were usually men. During WWII there were a lot of computers who were women and who worked for the government, but the same could be said of welders.
Re:Gender neutral (Score:3)
I am sure that it warms your heart to be on the PC side of the discussion, but things are hard all over. Most women my age (I am 39 now) who really worked hard at programming/systems/databases are doing very well, many contracting like me. Is a woman making $250,000 a year disenfranchised? Umm, I would say that the answer is "No", Bob. It took them as long as me. It would be fair to say that women face different problems in the workplace, but they are not exclusively singled out.
Furthermore, I have watched PC attempts to get more women into computing fail over and over again. Some of the engagements that I have been on have been Federal, some state, and you see that a lot. This is not a profession that the uninterested do well in. Women are not in systems because they don't want to be. It almost always is their fault. And how is this different from anyone else? Think about it for a second
I would like to be sympathetic, but hey, I am fifth generation college educated on both sides of my family (including the women) and my mother taught me COBOL as a kid. She runs Linux (Debian, 2.0.38 as of last month) and she is 71. And she did it without needed a Federal welfare program to feel better about being a woman in systems. My wife is a DB2/MVS jock. She came up the hard way, and she too doesn't feel bad about it. My daughters are now 11 and 14, and they can type 80+ wpm, both do pretty good perl, and are making pin money (that expression dates me a little) doing html scripting, and I never forced them into anything (well, perhaps showing them the SP stacks at an early age kinked them). I would like to be sympathetic to the plight of women in systems, but
I think it's mostly cultural... (Score:2)
Re:I did think before I spoke (Score:2)
Now you've met one. Female geeks as such are no more cool than male geeks. To think otherwise is implicitly sexist. Consider your horizons broadened.
Your assumption that the parents' opinions and occupations greatly influence the career paths of their children cannot be assumed these days, as it often could have been a couple of generations ago. My father made printing ink and my mother was a teacher. I'm a programmer, my sister is a BOFH, and my brother is a buyer. Do you see the correlation? You do? Then you're insane. There isn't one.
Re:Reasons for stereotypes? (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for this?
Politically Incorrect Ranting (Take a look around) (Score:4)
No women in tech fields? God, who would have known? Are people just beginning to notice this? I've been involved with computer related activities (one of those social outcasts mentioned in many other posts) for some time now. And ya know what? I don't see (m)any females, period. Sure, there are one or two. But I've worked all across North America, and the number of women in engineering positions is low!
There are some women in technical writing and related fields (support). I have met (2), count 'em, 2, females developing C++. And frankly, I wasn't too impressed with the skills of one of them (not to be sexist or anything). I have met literally hundreds of male engineers / programmers though - the range of companies spanning everything from small shops, to academia, to big corps (hello Intel!). Some of those males had code that sucked too - but the ratios are astonishing.
Any stats on /.? This is a more general forum than I'm talking about - my background is electrical engineering - and it's still, way, way, way, way male oriented.
So, obviously, there is a serious issue here - is it an issue though? Maybe, concidering that hardcore engineering and programming/design jobs are going to make up more and more of the high paying jobs that are available in the future.
Let's get to the root of it: In western culture, computers aren't cool. Engineers, well, they're not real cool either, by association. This is not the case in many eastern societies, where engineers and tech people are pretty hot shit (pardon my french) as far as potential mates/partners/etc go.
I think a lot of this doesn't have much to do with male vs female genetic differences. It might have a little, but I doubt it. I think it has much more to do with how people (females, especially) are socialized - specifically, that social status, attractiveness, social connections, etc are much more important in the formative years than hacking away on a computer. And this is more important than a lot of people think - most of the skills I have now I can trace the roots back to hacking on my old Commodore 64, learning assembler so I could run programs on my 1541 disk drive :).
There are exceptions to the above, sure. We're talking general trends though. And one of the things that I love about this industry is there is no discrimination. If your code rocks, I don't care if you're a she, he, it, pierced, gay, asexual, socially inept - your code rocks. Being able to communicate with others helps too though :). But, that's all part of being a good hacker.. a la social engineering :).
Personally, a shortage of tech workers is a good thing - it makes me more valuable. That's microeconomics, though. hehehe.
There's my $0.02 (cdn)
Kudos!
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
Re:There's just so much to say on this subject... (Score:2)
I received my bachelor's degree in 1975 from an East Coast university paralyzed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpolarized around science and technology; a page there [mit.edu] indicates that
A report on "Women Undergraduate Enrollment in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT" [mit.edu] has some statistics on degree recipients [mit.edu] that appear to indicate that, in some engineering departments (chemical engineering, chemistry), more than 50% of the degree recipients were women.
However, it also indicates that, in EE and computer science, the percentage of degree recipients who were women was low.
The report might be worth reading for those who want to opine on this topic.
Re:I don't see what all the complaining is about (Score:2)
To apply the same reasoning to the discussion at hand, feminist sociologists would argue that while it is indeed true that women don't learn to program because they don't want to, the reason they don't want to is far from inherent to women, and is in fact rooted in culture. Furthermore, the fact that there aren't very many girls involved in computer-related fields means that tomorrow's women will be at a severe economic disadvantage- because of cultural patterns that we could do something about.
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:3)
Re:Links directly to the articles (Score:2)
The first of those articles says
which is, of course, not at all true of Slashdot - especially not the
part, which you never see on Slashdot. :-)
If, as indicated, those tendencies, especially the one I just cited, are more often exhibited by males than by females, I'd see that as one reason to try to increase female participation in CMC - it might help increase the clue level in discussions.
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
To address your objection to my post- you say that I want you to "[go] along with the claim that women are at a disadvantage in education," but I think you'll find if you reread my posting that I made no such suggestion. All I did was point out the claim that you yourself made that women were unfairly being helped in academia- specifically that their grades were being boosted. In your words: "I suspect that the reason women do better in academia while men do better at standardized tests and in real-world jobs is that it's easier to rig the academic system to favor a preferred sex."
Incidentally, there are many reasons why one might believe that rather than the academic system being unfairly stacked towards women, standardized tests and the work force are unfairly stacked towards men (though I'm sure that you know that, considering that you are such an expert on feminism). For an idea of how standardized tests like the SAT might be stacked against a particular group, read this article [theatlantic.com] which appeared in Atlantic Monthly a while back- a rather famous stereotype psychologist's discussion of that issue, explaining why white students do better than black students in higher education (hint: he takes a different stance than The Bell Curve did). As for jobs- that women hold nearly none of the uppermost positions in business (despite, as you point out, their educational levels) is widely known. Reasons? Amply documented. Women are promoted less often than men of the same ability levels, are frequently kept out of the social groups that form upper-level power networks ("good old boys' networks"), have to do "two jobs" (housework, which is still done mostly by women, even though those same women work the same hours that their husbands do), and are in general thought of as less competent than their male counterparts.
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
Re:Female Slashdot Readers: Your attention please (Score:2)
The only industries in which it seems women regularly earn as much as or more than men are modelling, pornography, prostitution, soap-opera acting and erotic dance - all industries fueled and funded by men's fantasies or women's anxieties.
Re:There's just so much to say on this subject... (Score:2)
Re:There's just so much to say on this subject... (Score:2)
Re:Bull, CS is a boys club (at least in systems) (Score:2)
On e of the articles from that issue of the CPSR newsletter [cpsr.org] mentions something along those lines:
(I'm not entirely sure why males adopting an adversarial style in cooperative exchanges, and females adopting an "aligned" style even when disagreeing, suggests that these differences stem from socialization rather than biology - I'm not saying they do stem from biology; heck, they may not even stem from one single cause....)
I'm curious whether, as this might suggest, getting more women to contribute to computer-mediated communication forums would dampen the bad aspects of the stereotypical male style, e.g. cause fewer opinions to be asserted strongly as "facts" (and, in my aggressive confrontational male style, I'd suggest that, if that happened, it might considerably raise the quality-to-crap ratio of, say, USENET or Slashdot...).
Re:Bull, CS is a boys club (at least in systems) (Score:2)
Perhaps by "respond well" he meant "doesn't just back down"; backing down just because somebody calls your idea stupid is, arguably, not responding well, but responding aggressively but without solid evidence and reasoning from that evidence is also, arguably, not responding well. (For example, I'd consider neither acquiescent silence, or "No, your idea is stupid!" without solid justification for that assertion, to be good responses to "Your idea is stupid!")
In your experience, do men and women "not respond well" in the same fashion to aggressive criticism?
Re:Men are discouraged too (Score:2)
For women, the cultural message is much more monotonic- "science is not for you." There aren't many sciency role models for women, and there's still the stigma of being a dork or a geek if you like science or computers. So the fact that men are discouraged from being scientists is cancelled out by the fact that women are also discouraged the same way, and that leaves the fact that men do have some encouragement whereas women usually do not.
Re:women programmers (Score:2)
It's "COBOL gal" and "FORTRAN guy" - Grace Hopper was one of the chief developers, if not the chief developer, of COBOL; John Backus was one of the chief developers, if not the chief developer, of FORTRAN.
Sophie Wilson is cited as the designer of the ARM instruction set; see her bio [e-14.com] in the list of the management team at Element 14:
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
The point of a parody is that it resembles its target in some key fashion. There was nothing parodic in your summary of my position -- it was a heavy-handed lie. Learn the difference between parody and mere sarcasm, and do it quickly.
If you want to posit a systematic conspiracy against women everywhere but in our schools, that's your privilege. It is up to the intelligent reader to decide which environment is likelier to be bias-prone -- the world of the standardized test, the great wide world of events, or the cloistered, female-dominated world of school [vix.com]. While you're at it, you can hypothesize about black helicopters and New World Orders. Thinking adults are unlikely to join you in your fantasies.
I find it amusing that you seek to compare the status of blacks with the status of women. As Warren Farrell points out in The Myth of Male Power, it is men who die early, get less education, and work in dangerous jobs, not women. If we are to make a racial analogy based on the facts, you are very likely to lose.
You claim that your workplace conspiracy against women is "amply documented", but tellingly you fail to include such documentation. Perhaps you hope to rely on popular misapprehensions -- what "everyone knows". I think you should make an effort to educate yourself about the myth of the glass ceiling [intellectualcapital.com], the myth of the wage gap [amcity.com], and other lies you've been told -- and been telling.
--
math :) (Score:2)
I won't play unless you come out with your real long-on!
(Same rule for the putz.)
I love it when I run into other math-nuts who want to chat math.
Since you are not the putz, how about, win-or-lose, we all have fun with this?
i.e., my point wouldn't be to prove you are bad at math, even if you lose, etc. (keep it fun and games, not ego-based) So take as long as you need, etc.
I am just grateful to find people who wants to have math conversations! (How much are you into sphere packing?) I don't need to trash people's egoes.
First one: What is ( 2 * x * x + 2 * y * y + z * z - 1 ) ^ 3 - 0.1 x * x * z * z * z - y * y * z * z * z = 0 ?
You can either answer the math way by recognizing the function, or you can cheat by coding it/graphing it. Take your time.
P.S. You don't need to be too scared. While my code have current math, I have been in the applied world in many years. You have a pretty good chance if you are still in academia and the rigor is fresh.
You hear that putz? If you're in academia still you have a good chance.
Corrinne Yu
3D Game Engine Programmer
Re:womyn and computers (Score:3)
And besides, parody is a rather fun and expressive way to make one's point, often cutting to the quick quite a bit more effectively than other rhetorical devices. In fact, I like it so much I think I'll use it again: "If you want to posit a systematic conspiracy against blacks everywhere but in our schools, that's your privilege. It is up to the intelligent reader to decide which environment is likelier to be bias-prone -- the world of the standardized test, the great wide world of events, or the cloistered, black-sympathizer-dominated world of school. While you're at it, you can hypothesize about black helicopters and New World Orders. Thinking adults are unlikely to join you in your fantasies." In fact, I certainly do not think that there is a conspiracy against women that extends to all of society except our schools- I think there is a conspiracy against women that extends to all of society including our schools. Let me remind you of the topic under which we are posting- amazingly, we find that virtually no women are learning science, even though the modern economy is driven very largely by technology. Does this add up to economic empowerment for women? I'd say no.
And as for those links you provided, "disproving" the glass ceiling and wage gap arguments: the arguments they present seem to me to miss the point entirely. Notice how both articles say "we need to control for qualified applicants"? Why do you think there aren't as many qualified applicants? Is it because women are stupid? From everything I can figure, that is what you think, and it's why I put those words in your mouth. I don't like that answer, though: I think it's because of what you might call "institutionalized sexism" in which women are systematically marginalized, so they don't really have a fighting chance at being society's leaders.
As for why I didn't provide citations: one, I am currently on vacation and away from my books and articles, and unfortunately most gender research is published only on dead trees. Two, I find the citation game to be rather stupid. I would rather have people read and respond thoughtfully to my thoughts than go about providing ten million references and then yelling "You didn't read article X, Y, and Z!" just to cut them off from making what otherwise might be a legitimate criticism. Put another way: I find that most people hide behind citation to conceal the fact that they don't have any of their own thoughts, and I don't like that.
pssst... RL TTBs... over here! (Score:2)
Re:women programmers (Score:2)
I'm not a historian, either, I'm just a middle-aged fart (an old fart is somebody who was around when COBOL was developed; I was around, but I wasn't precocious enough to be programming at the age of 5).
Interestingly enough, one of the people who was involved with GNU COBOL [gnu.org] was a woman, Laura Tweedy [lusars.net], who'd also developed another piece of free software, libico, an LGPLed library to read Windows ".ico" files and libraries and to write XPM files; she says on her home page that she's not actively involved any more (she's working at a company that does "Natural Language Tools for Text Analysis and Message Management" - I found it amusing that on her Web site she spoke of an interest in natural language processing; the first thing that came to mind, given her work on GNU COBOL, was "as opposed to unnatural language processing?").
Re:womyn and computers (Score:4)
You know, if you put something in quotes, it sounds more dubious?
and wage gap arguments: the arguments they present seem to me to miss the point entirely.
Actually, the arguments hit the point exactly. They're not dealing with "institutionalized sexism", they're dealing with "the glass ceiling" and "the wage gap", which in at least the first case they are surprisingly good at debunking.
Notice how both articles say "we need to control for qualified applicants"?
Yes. And they're right. Both articles are looking at discrimination in the workplace, not discrimination in education. And when you're looking at salaries or promotions, any comparison of groups of applicants with different qualifications, expecting equivalent results, is ridiculous.
Why do you think there aren't as many qualified applicants?
If you read the article you'd have their answer, one which certainly sounds sufficient to me: "In 1970, when today's senior managers were graduating, fewer than five percent of law and MBA degrees were awarded to women."
Is it because women are stupid?
Note that they didn't use the phrase "dumb women" once. It's not that women are stupid. It's most likely because during the 50s when 1970 graduates were growing up, there was incredible social and media pressure against successful career women and toward homemakers. It's quite likely because in the 60s when today's senior managers were in school, there was serious discrimination against women at every level of education.
The claim isn't that the current lack of women CEOs isn't a result of bias and discrimination, just that that lack is much more a result of 30 year old discrimination than current discrimination.
The link given fails to give conclusive evidence to the lack of a "glass ceiling", though. Not nearly enough figures in what's essentially an editorial summary.
This is why I like Thomas Sowell, BTW - his newspaper columns aren't much better than you'd expect from a couple hundred words, but his books contain statistically relevant facts, something all too absent from discussion of social issues.
Why, every now and then you even run across a writer who is proud of not inserting facts among his thoughts and criticizes others for doing so. Imagine that.
I think it's because of what you might call "institutionalized sexism" in which women are systematically marginalized, so they don't really have a fighting chance at being society's leaders.
If you're talking about socialization of women, about the imbued traits that our culture tries to slap on young girls, than I'm inclined to agree with you... although the problem isn't nearly as current as you seem to think, judging by the female majority in today's college admissions.
As for why I didn't provide citations: one, I am currently on vacation and away from my books and articles, and unfortunately most gender research is published only on dead trees.
This is why I liked MajorNet (and like Usenet, if you filter out the losers) more than Slashdot for serious debates. It was always nice, when caught off guard by a point of your opponent, to be able to come back days later with a well-supported rebuttal. Of course Slashdot discussions fade into oblivion within 24 hours.
Two, I find the citation game to be rather stupid. I would rather have people read and respond thoughtfully to my thoughts
This is just stupid. First of all, those links took up a couple words space in what was otherwise all original. Secondly, while I was amused by your parody and this whole discussion, those links are the most worthwhile thing I've seen from either of you. Stupid engineer-brained me, to want to read factual numbers and see accurate methodology instead of watching two people insult each other.
Put another way: I find that most people hide behind citation to conceal the fact that they don't have any of their own thoughts, and I don't like that.
The last person I heard that from was a creationist who was indignant that I responded to his claim that there are no transitional fossils with details on mammal, whale, bird, and horse lineages. It knocked my opinion of him down a notch, too. Not that his writing was ever as good as yours to begin with.
There is some social conditioning (Score:2)
In my experience I've known very few women who were good with computers or who had the right mindset to work with computers well... but I haven't known that many guys like that either. However, as a guy I was encouraged in my computing experiments--guys would approve, and women would say things like ``You're so smart.'' (obviously not the geek women women who I wanted :-) ).
There were a lot of guys (mostly Jock-types), who thought they knew everything. So they would be very assertive in their knowledge of computers and science. If I corrected them, it was fine (because everyone knew that I was a nerd and knew what I was talking about (besides they were stronger, so admitting my superiority in this one area was ok). However, if a girl corrected them, they would reassert their correctness (wrong though it might be) until the girl backed down or gave up trying to correct them (this was especially true if the girl was pretty--which most geek women I've known are).
Most of the geek women I've known have gone into education or communication. I think some of them would have gone into computers if there was more encouragement (not to boost their self-esteem, but to show them that they would be accepted and be able to make a contribution without a lot of battles).
Because of this filtering that goes on, the geek women that have gone into computing and engineering are either REALLY good, or trying to prove a point. I can't respect the ones that are just trying to prove a point.
Oh, and for you geek women: you are awesome, and generally very attractive to us geek guys (or at least, I am very attracted to geek women). So I probably try to prove myself more to the women, and so come off a bit patronizing. I don't mean this, and I'm sure that a lot of geek guys are like this. So if there's something about our behavior that bothers you, just say something. You'll probably get a quick quip dismissing it, but then say ``No, really... I mean it.'' and I would be more than happy to accommodate.
In other words, us guys make mistakes; give us room :-)
Boy, I feel like Jon Katz now :-)
Re:math :) (Score:2)
sorry but I refuse to type that kind of crap in plain old text
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
Re:FYI: Female Geeks Pages (Score:2)
This is an annoying trend. Not every woman out there that could benefit from computer usage is a 14 year old neo-feminist punk rocking 'contemporary chick'. The average woman out there is your mom, or maybe your sister, or the girl next door.
There's _plenty_ of room between Martha Stewart and the gerl/gurl/grrl crowd. Who is filling this area? I have a feeling it is being ignored. Most women out there don't want to feel like they are making some grandiose statement about girl power, nor do they care to keep long rambling journals with kitschy 50's era pop culture pictures and pink flowers. Most women want to make their lives more productive.
I'm all for female empowerment and equality, but the whole Spice Girls-esque gerl/gurl/grrl 'movement' makes me want to hurl.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Gender neutral (Score:2)
Perhaps for you, but not for everyone. 15 years on "the net" have resulted in getting contacted by a long list of people who are only interested in you because you have a female name.
There are quite a few women out there who use male sounding names to prevent them from being treated as a stupid person, or a lust object.
-- Abigail
Re:The women won't have a say... (Score:2)
I would even go further, and say two of the people who influenced current programming the most were women. Ada Lovelace, who studied and wrote about computer programming, long before there were working computers, and Grace Hopper who pioneered the concept of programming languages and compilers.
Unfortunally, I cannot name any woman after Grace Hopper.
-- Abigail
Re:Augusta Ada Byron (Score:2)
Urg. That attitude is one of the reasons women stay away from the computing world. Women in the computer world are a minority, and the prospect of a whole bunch of men whose first thought is "it would be cool to date her" is enough to keep groups of women away.
I futher would like to point out that geek != tech. I know a lot of tech (wo)men who certainly aren't geeks and I know a lot of geek (wo)men who I wouldn't classify as tech savvy.
-- Abigail
Neal Stephenson was right after all (Score:2)
Re:numbers increasing (Score:2)
Unfortunally, my experience is quite the opposite. I started my life in the "computer world" about 20 years ago, when I started studying computer science and math. My first 10 years were mainly academic. While a minority, female CS or math scientists are not uncommon. Female (full) CS professors, women chairing important conferences, all common enough not have warranted an article like the one discussed now, had the article been about the (academic) CS community 10 years ago. I'd say 20-25% is female.
But then, after the academic world, I moved to other areas. Worked for an ISP, I made web sites, then moved to US, were I did tech support, worked as a tech analyst, and later as a database administrator. I noticed that the non-academic tech world certainly had a lot less women academic world. And, while in the academic world, the male/female ratio seems to be the same from top to bottom (professors, researchers, students), that's not the case in the non-academic world. Women are under represented in the higher positions.
But what's even more shocking is the Perl world - a subset of the computer world. There are hardly any female Perl people. I was at YAPC last year, a Perl conference. 2 talks by women, and about 5% of the attendees were female. There are no women who are important Perl porters, hardly any female CPAN authors. There are a few women on #perl, the IRC channel, but that's still a tiny minority.
I don't know why women are a minority in the computer world, and I don't know why it's even worse in the Perl community. And unfortunally, I don't see any tendency of it getting better.
-- Abigail
Re:A Sad Truth (Score:2)
Most men don't either.
-- Abigail
Social outcasts? Maybe other factors too... (Score:2)
I am a woman, web designer / webmistress, with many male geek friends; I work and experiment with computers a lot, both as a job and a hobby.
And -- I like to observe how people interact with computers, how curious they are about them, whether they consider them as a necessary evil or an interesting tool. I don't want to generalize, but most of the women I know don't have the tendency to learn more about the ins and outs of their computers; at best, their machines are just handy instruments that enable them to get rid of some boring standard tasks, so that they can devote more time to other, non-technical things they find more important and satisfying.
Very few choose technical professions. Women -- and research has proven this -- generally tend to dislike jobs that might automatically lead to power positions, hence the minority of females in engineering, law, politics, computer science... and the huge amounts of women choosing 'soft' professions (culture-related, administrative, social sector...). Even in pro-tech (cyber)feminist circles I've observed the tendency towards this 'softer' approach; when tech women get together, they mostly seem to prefer to socialize, and their way of communicating is very different from the way male geeks interact. Again, I don't want to generalize, but it's good to be aware of this almost 'cultural' difference. Computer technology has always been quite 'male centered' in general, and so are the discussions that surround it (/. for example). Women who start using computers are like immigrants in a pretty different cultural surrounding.
That's the situation, whether you like it or not. I don't think it makes much sense to blame anyone for this; women should definitely not be blamed for being slightly disinterested in technology, imho. You cannot force anyone into something s/he does not like or is not ready for; failure of recent (Belgian, but I think this happens elsewhere too) campaigns to encourage women to choose tech professions might prove this -- in 1999 the lowest percentage of Belgian women ever have enrolled in 1st year Computer Science university degree courses.
Another thing: women, in all professional areas, still earn lower wages than men. That's also a real problem, perhaps more serious than women's absence in certain sectors, and something that men have the obligation to be observant about, whether you work in CS, in a medical profession or elsewhere. If you allow me to make some tendentious suggestions: ;)
In order to anticipate feeble jokes: my nickname refers to my last name ;)
Exception, not the rule. (Score:2)
Great! Now, if you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said there are female engineers. They're just outnumbered 10:1 or so. So, after reading what I wrote again, for exercise #2, name 6 other females with equivilant skills. For each of those females, you should easily be able to identify 10 males. This is the point I was trying to make.
Forgive me for being "young and naive". Who's discriminating there, eh? I did a 6 year EE/ECE degree too - maybe I'll have to go back, because OBVIOUSLY, I must have missed out on the old boys network. Judging people based on their output instead of sex, damn. I must have fucked up at male training school! Sorry for trying!
I don't start conversations with "geek talk: I'll translate". I'd ask what you've done to make me notice you. Naming a cool C++ project would certainly make my (ears?) perk up.
If you work in an environment that isn't like that, leave. But then again, I'm young and naieve (with male genitalia to boot). YEESH. Those guys sound like high school football alpha males, not linux geeks.
Kudos!
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
As for your comments about citation: okay, I was tired when I wrote that and I can see that I didn't explain myself too well. Mea culpa. I certainly should have provided citations for the arguments that I gave, and would have given my books and articles. My early experience with formal argumentation, though, all came from philosophy, and in philosophy (particularly ethical philosophy) there are a startling number of people who will ignore any philosophical argument at all, no matter how well-reasoned, unless it goes along with something that Kant or Mill or Bentham or somebody like that said- the more citation the better. It sickens and frustrates me- how often did Mill cite other philosophers in his most famous works? (Hint: rhymes with "not boften.") So anyway, that's where that idea comes from. In matters of science, of course one should support one's arguments with fact, and unless one conducts all of one's own studies, citing other people's studies is the best way to do that. But in matters of argumentation, the idea that "a good argument is one that quotes a lot of famous people" is a dangerous religion.
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
To say (and not that it
In light of this, isn't it detrimental to attempt to equalize fields in which any gender happen
What must be done is to ensure that both (or all) genders have equal opportunity to take
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:2)
at least dominance in the area of sports is openly acnowledged as a goal.
however, it isn't being an outcast that makes a hacker. it's rather curiosity and intellegence, which many times places one out of the mainstream (voluntarily), but sometimes does not.
and, by definition, you aren't the typical "girl". neither am I. and, by the numbers, any geekgirl certainly ain't.
Lea
Re:Why so few women in the industry (Score:2)
this may have more to do with personality (and the desire of the first child to please the parents and the second not to be like the first)
just a thought
Lea
"Out of clutter, find simplicity"-Albert Einstein (Score:2)
However, power and manipulation would rather retract and degrade that potential. It seems that men, not to blame every man out there and I am trying hard not to make a blanket statement, have the cave man mentality that men should be superior above all including woman, child (male or female),
animal, and plant.
This world has perverted the thoughts and notions of many women. Where, even women placed hurdles for their own kith.
You have women who call themselves Feminists. Some of these activists call to women and say "Stand up for yourselves. Be where men are! Do what they do! You have the right to be just like them!"
Why would women want to emulate the thing that has
placed women in a secondary position?
If you see these men dressed in suits, making money, acting arrogant, cutting their friends down because 'its just business', then
To quote Judy Garland -"Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of somebody else."
If women want to go into the computer field it should be encouraged because we do have the gift to think in an alternate way just like men think in an alternate way to us. Also, all in all we each differ in the way we think from one another-human to human.
A multiplicity of ideas and thoughts create such a diversity. How much more of a gift could you ask for? To not only have gifted men working in this field pushing it forward but to have the skills and mind's eye of gifted women as well.
I work in the computer field. Everyday is a loving and wonderful growing experience. I learn so much. My friends (males - 3 LINUX GEEKS to be exact) have taught me things as I have taught them things. We are healthy compeition to one another, but we are all equal. We learn and we develop together. We do not subtract from each other.
I even, with the aide of two other male friends, begun a LUG where I was the only woman. I became surrounded by men. Yes, it was uncomfortable at first, but I had the benefit of learning something new each time I sat down.
It can be difficult for a woman because some men are highly competitive about what they know. It is a shame that in an open source community, that these men would rather keep knowledge and experience from others. You can help others without having to dissolve the ability and status of yourself. I speak this from personally experiencing it from a member within the LUG.
However, I am more and more scared at how women and men are behaving. The women out there care more about being a preening bunch of pigeons as do the men. Clothes. Hairstyles. Cars. Sex. Money.
People are really losing themselves in the whirlwind of fast, patched solutions to complex and evolving issues.
I love computers genuinely I do. I have been a geek since pre-school. I have always opted to hang to with the geek guys because I saw what they did and it was what I wanted to do. I had the want to do something other than being a peacock.
Usually unless it has changed, friends provide development, warmth and encouragement. Those geek guys I love and hang out do all of this. Your friends can be your best resources for many things.
I guess to really sum up my jumbled feelings and thoughts. Be open minded, invite women into the community of geeks, make friends with us --you would truly be impressed to find out what we have to say and what we know...you would also be surprised that we want to learn from you...as wanting to learn from our encounters, adventures, and explorations into the realm of what moves and makes a computer tick.
Oh, well --I love you geek men nonetheless..
SeineThinker --a subject of honest rambling--
--"I don't believe; I know" -Carl Jung
Re:There's just so much to say on this subject... (Score:2)
Did you follow the links in my posting? The statistics page from the MIT Online Women's Center [mit.edu] showed that, of the students who weren't first-year students (and who thus haven't yet declared a major) or second-year students who had deferred selection of a major, most of them were, err, umm, engineering students (2,036 engineering; 913 science; 169 humanities and social science; 131 management; 78 architecture and planning; 14 "Third-year Special Students"), and the page with the graphs [mit.edu] showed that in many of those engineering departments, a significant number of graduates (> 50%, for chemical engineering, materials science, biology, and chemistry) were women.
The latter page also mentioned the "adjusted ratio of women to men", i.e. the ratio of the fraction of all women at the school who are in the department to the fraction of all men at the school who are in the department; the ratios for degrees granted in 1991 and 1993 for EE/CS are closer to "women at MIT are only about half as likely as men to major in EECS" than to the 7-to-1 ratio the person in the posting to which I was responding spoke of. (For engineering as a whole, that page says "...for the School of Engineering overall, women and men major in engineering at the same rate."
To quote the page with the graphs:
(emphasis mine). Unless I'm misreading the graphs, for CalTech, in EE, it looks as if, for 1991 degree recipients, about 17% of men, and about 23% of women, got degrees in EE - i.e., it appears that the chances that a randomly-chosen class-of-1991 woman at CalTech got her degree in EE are higher than the chances that a randomly-chosen class-of-1991 man at CalTech got his degree in EE. I.e., the "adjusted ratio of women to men" was greater than 1.
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Now that we've established some basic laws of statistics, maybe you're in a better position to understand the "liberal equality fantasy." I have never heard anyone argue intelligently that we should assume that all groups are identical. That would not be liberal, it would be stupid. (Yes, there is a difference.) I have heard many liberals argue that many differences between groups, and many great inequalities, exist not because they have to but because of social patterns that favor one group and disfavor another arbitrarily (with respect to ability). Unfortunately, many social illnesses behave like fixed points- that is, the problems cause effects that in turn perpetuate the problems- which makes many people think, "Well, that's just the way it is." Such an attitude is understandable but wrong. That isn't just the way it is, and won't be unless people let it be. From my perspective, then, there isn't a "left-wing equality fantasy" but rather a "right-wing inequality fantasy."
Oh, and since I seem to be the font of rhetoric today, I'll dispense another tip, this one for you: describing liberals as "ranting, raving, and foaming at the mouth [...] fanatics" is about one step above calling them poopy-heads. It is a rhetorical device that is quite unlikely to convince anyone of your point.
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Re:MOST GENIUSES ARE MALE (Women arent smart enoug (Score:2)
Incidentally, since Asians make up such a tiny percentage of the country, and since there do exist Asians with the letter 'S' in their names (I have a friend named Soumendra, and one whose last name is Subramanian), I imagine that effect wouldn't be substantial, and you'd find that there would be no significant correlation between 'S' and IQ. And, more importantly, if you did, that would not imply causation.
Re:womyn and computers (Score:2)
However, there's also another problem- regardless of who's predisposed to what, it is important that the most powerful jobs of a society are not dominated by one gender alone (alas, the USA gets only a C- on that grade by my accounting). If the economy is shifting towards IT as the most important skill, than regardless of whether women like it or not, society as a whole had better make sure that they have a substantial representation there.
Re:A truly equal opportunity workplace (Score:2)
I mean, you may not agree with the guy's business tactics, but don't take away from the fact that he had some very visionary ideas and some pretty important code.
*burp* (Score:2)
Re:Gender neutral (Score:2)
The same might be said for race issues, though I am more likely to say 'whaddup my niggah' to my white friends than my black friends. heh
Plus, I honestly am color blind so... heh... all green and red people look alike to me!
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Re:Gender neutral (OT) (Score:2)
It should also be pointed out that new terms and ideas are more likely to be noticed by the conscious brain when you first learn them. Hence, if a friend points out that he naturally has redhair, you'll notice more redheads the rest of the week. kind of a subliminal mark on you.
--
Gonzo Granzeau