Slashdot Mirror

Grace Hopper | Code of Conduct: "The Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing Conference (GHC) believes our community should be truly open for everyone. As such, we are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all participants free from discrimination for any reason including on the basis of gender...."

So, "its work to continue," is a misnomer then. It's more accurate to state that other organizations with similar objectives will continue to pursue them even though this organization has bowed-out. It's not like the closing of this organization is directly causing its resources and specific pursuits to be applied post-mortem.

You're correct: their donors and volunteers and supporters won't automatically transfer to another organization, and that this the most unfortunate part of the Ada Initiative shutting down. Hence, I feel compelled to suggest other, like-minded organizations. My personal favorite "best match" is the Anita Borg Institute, but ACM-W or SWE run close seconds (in my mind at least). Indeed, I met "Val Henson", and still have trouble remembering her name change to "Valarie Anita Aurora".... perhaps Val can chime in herself about which charity she would prefer people support, but I'd put money on ABI.

I've met Valarie personally; she's quite driven, smart, and focused. I can understand how running an organization like that can be draining, and it's sad yet understandable why they're shutting down.

I might suggest, though, on top of the other organizations listed as successors to support, the Anita Borg Institute.

For some real numbers, check out the following:

• http://www.anitaborg.org/faq.html
• http://www.cra.org/statistics/trends/Gender/bachpe rc.html
• http://cs.smith.edu/~orourke/fstats.html

To address a few of your points (from my own perspective, of course):

Hmm, you seem to have all these worries about people doubting your abilities and yet you chose to go ahead with it anyway. Please explain why you did so if you think this is such a barrier to entry for women.

Simply put, I am really stubborn. When someone tells me I shouldn't be able to do something, I tend to want to prove them wrong. And to be honest, I don't constantly worry about this stuff - if I did, I would go completely bonkers. I've learned to tolerate it as best I can, because if I didn't it would affect my work tremendously.

Or maybe you will concede that there are a variety of factors, one of which may be the stigma (and I'm not convinced that anybody passionate about their interests will be turned off by any amount of stigma -- hello, men have to deal with being considered "nerds" for pursuing their interests in computers). Another more significant factor, in my opinion, is that men and women are simply wired differently. They are differently abled, with men, on average, having greater mental facilities for math and science due to thousands of years of genetic evolution imparted by the roles that men and women have naturally assumed.

First off, let me say up front that I don't think the reasons I gave are the only factors in the decline of women in these fields. I mentioned them because most of the posts thus far had not given similar first-person accounts, and I think it is important for someone who has had the experience to speak up a little. Second, I guess I don't think my points are the same kind of stigma as the "nerd" stigma. Within the geek community at least, being a nerd or geek is a badge of honor. I proudly proclaim myself a geek all over the place. Where can I proudly proclaim that I am being perceived as less fit for computer science because I am female?

I absolutely agree that men and women are wired differently. I don't think that means that women are not fit for computing. And I think that such an argument ignores that the alarm over the declining numbers of women in computing is not over the percentages themselves, but their change over time. In 1984, 37% of computer science degrees were awarded to women. By 1998 this had dropped to about 27%, even as growth occurred in other fields like engineering. You can find more about these statistics at the Anita Borg institute at http://www.anitaborg.org/faq.html.

By the way, I don't see how your theory about wiring could be correct considering that the percentage of degrees awarded to women in many engineering fields has risen. If women are kept from computer science by wiring, why wouldn't they be kept from engineering fields, which in many cases have at least as much math and science involved?