Slashdot Mirror

This is a really poor quality Slashdot story - and I say that as a woman.
Yes of course *I* can name women who are or have been company leaders in tech (Melissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg)
And I can also name hands-on technologists. Grace Hopper, Ada Lovelace, Kathy Sierra and Sandi Metz all come to mind without trying.

That said, "we have a problem with an absence of women in tech -- most people can only name Siri and Alexa" is a story without real merit.
If you must discuss gender imbalance in our industry could you pick something smacking a bit less of click-bait as your only link? I mean, please.

If you'd like a link talking about why gender diversity is actually a boon to companies, try this one:
https://www.ncwit.org/sites/de...

If you'd like a link on ways of actually getting women to take the computer science plunge, try this one:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people...

I should really not allow myself to be trolled into commenting, but this is garbage and Slashdot can do better without even trying very hard.

Peer influence and negative stereotypes

Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?

positive female role models

You can do this in a co-ed classroom.

an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests

Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.

This woudn't be the case in a co-ed classroom

I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.

Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.

If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?

That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all.

To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...

Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.

If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.

What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities. Boys that have "informal opportunities", spend their own time to cultivate an interest. Yet, Girls are not. because they have different interests. FTFA, they are not as interested in working with computers, computer animation, computer programming and computer games . They prefercommunal careers.

And have chosennot to work with computers in high school.

Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.

Peer influence and negative stereotypes

Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?

positive female role models

You can do this in a co-ed classroom.

an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests

Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.

This woudn't be the case in a co-ed classroom

I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.

Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.

If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?

That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all.

To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...

Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.

If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.

What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities. Boys that have "informal opportunities", spend their own time to cultivate an interest. Yet, Girls are not. because they have different interests. FTFA, they are not as interested in working with computers, computer animation, computer programming and computer games . They prefercommunal careers.

And have chosennot to work with computers in high school.

Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.

Peer influence and negative stereotypes

Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?

positive female role models

You can do this in a co-ed classroom.

an environment where it's acceptable for them to indulge in those interests

Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.

This woudn't be the case in a co-ed classroom

I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.

Just facing a male-dominated classroom, where they're very likely to be subjected to unwanted comments and advances, can be intimidating. It's certainly not conducive to learning.

If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?

That you can't find a single legitimate reason for 'girls only' programs tells me that you don't understand the issues at all.

To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...

Really, it's quite simple: women and girls face significant obstacles that men and boys don't. If that's not inequality, I don't know what is! By reducing those barriers, we help to give them equal opportunity.

If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.

What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities. Boys that have "informal opportunities", spend their own time to cultivate an interest. Yet, Girls are not. because they have different interests. FTFA, they are not as interested in working with computers, computer animation, computer programming and computer games . They prefercommunal careers.

And have chosennot to work with computers in high school.

Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.

It's interesting that retention is one of the key problems the NCWIT calls out in their study, where they claim a 56% departure rate of women from the field, and yet they have no solutions to offer.

if I start a soup kitchen for the poor in some predominantly black community, it doesn't mean I'm a racist who hates white people.

Is it racist if you deny poor white people access to soup your kitchen? I don't think anyone is against engaging children in CS. The issue is actively denying interested parties by gender.

Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color.

So, because boys shown an interest in computers whether that is because of (FTFA) computer games or because of some other computer experience in high school; we should deny those kids access to education that could cultivate their interest because a kid with a different gender didn't have the same interest and we must have gender quotas??

Or did I miss something?

if I start a soup kitchen for the poor in some predominantly black community, it doesn't mean I'm a racist who hates white people.

Is it racist if you deny poor white people access to soup your kitchen? I don't think anyone is against engaging children in CS. The issue is actively denying interested parties by gender.

Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color.

So, because boys shown an interest in computers whether that is because of (FTFA) computer games or because of some other computer experience in high school; we should deny those kids access to education that could cultivate their interest because a kid with a different gender didn't have the same interest and we must have gender quotas??

Or did I miss something?

What is the available hiring pool? According to to the National Center for Women and Information Technology http://www.ncwit.org/ in a PDF document http://www.ncwit.org/sites/def...

14% of 2010 Computer Science undergraduate degree recipients at major research universities were women. This compares with 37% in 1985. Why blame Apple?

Besides what qualities do women provide that men don't? Intuitive GUIs? Did you know that Melinda French (who later married Bill Gates) pushed "Microsoft Bob" into production, and that Julie Larson-Green pushed through both the MS Office Ribbon and the Windows 8 Metro interface?

What is the available hiring pool? According to to the National Center for Women and Information Technology http://www.ncwit.org/ in a PDF document http://www.ncwit.org/sites/def...

14% of 2010 Computer Science undergraduate degree recipients at major research universities were women. This compares with 37% in 1985. Why blame Apple?

Besides what qualities do women provide that men don't? Intuitive GUIs? Did you know that Melinda French (who later married Bill Gates) pushed "Microsoft Bob" into production, and that Julie Larson-Green pushed through both the MS Office Ribbon and the Windows 8 Metro interface?

You are correct in aggregate - of course companies cannot hire people who don't exist - but I really struggle to believe that *Google* has 17% female application rates after controlling for education.

Why do you struggle to believe this?

The 17% figure reported is for tech workers only - their overall and non-tech numbers are much better, with 30% and 48% women respectively. You can see their released numbers here.

From this publication by the ASEE: "...females accounted for 18.4 percent of [engineering] bachelor’s degrees, up slightly from 18.1 percent in 2010. The percentage of master’s degrees awarded to women remained unchanged at 22.6 percent; while that of doctoral degrees decreased about 1 percent from 22.9 percent in 2010 to 21.8 percent in 2011. The proportion of engineering degrees awarded to females should remain stable over the next few years, since women represent 18.2 percent of all bachelor enrollees, 22.7 percent of master’s enrollees, and 21.6 percent of doctoral enrollees."

"The percentage of black students also decreased slightly at all levels, bringing the percent of [engineering] degrees awarded from around 4.5 percent to closer to 4 percent."

And regarding computer science, according to this infographic, 18% of computer science undergraduate degree recipients were female (14% at major research universities), and 19% of the highschool AP computer science test-takers were female. Also according to the infographic, percentage of female computer science undergraduates has dropped dramatically (by 79%!!) since 2000.

I definitely agree that the under-representation of women in the tech sector is a serious problem. However, this under-representation seems to be caused by a number of poorly understood socioeconomic and cultural factors, and the data doesn't indicate particular misogyny on Google's part.

Don't let Chelsea's out of touch talk throw off your opinion of NCWIT. Here is what probably should have made slashdot from conference: http://www.ncwit.org/video/201...

I don't have citation for more ratio of female computer professionals than 30 years ago, it was mentioned on the radio this morning.

Well, if you recall, the 'ratio' wasn't the statement needing citation - you said, "We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now," which indicates absolute numbers, not percentages of the total population.

But I'll Google that for you, and select the top hit:

http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNumbers09.pdf

Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in computing back then, so imagine how much worse it is now.

Again, it appears you forgot the basis of your original statement: that there are less women working in IT today than there were 30 years ago. You should have maybe looked up the Wiki page before going on a wild Google chase:

From 1993 through 1999, NSF’s SESTAT reported that the percentage of women working as computer/information scientists (including those who hold a bachelor’s degree or higher in an S&E field or have a bachelor’s degree or higher and are working in an S&E field) declined slightly from 33.1% to 29.6% percent while the absolute numbers increased from 170,500 to 185,000.

So you see, the absolute number has increased since the 1980's, proving your statement to be demonstrably false, and no amount of swaying in the breeze or moving goalposts will change that fact.

Now, if only you can provide a citation for the claim, "rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded." Specifically for that claim, not a different claim you make up that sounds kinda like the original statement, like what you tried to do with this post.

I won't be holding my breath.

I don't have citation for more ratio of female computer professionals than 30 years ago, it was mentioned on the radio this morning. But I'll Google that for you, and select the top hit:

http://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/legacy/pdf/BytheNumbers09.pdf

Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in computing back then, so imagine how much worse it is now.

So what? Check out any knitting club and you will see almost 100% females. And yet I don't see anyone getting too bent out of shape over this.

Are you really that stupid? Seriously? Let's look at the facts of the situation:

1) Women pursue development careers, and work as software engineers, in reasonably large (though still disproportionate) numbers - in 2009, 25% of computing jobs were held by women. (source)
2) That number is *decreasing* - in 1985, 37% of Undergrad CS degrees were awarded to women. In 2009, 18% of undergrad CS degrees were awarded to women. (source)
3) Most studies of Open Source communities show women's involvement at anywhere from ~1.5% to 5%. (source)

In other words: EVEN allowing for a "biological" difference to explain for the relatively low (and further declining) participation of women in Computer Science, the open source community shows an even sharper disparity - if 25% of computing jobs were held by women, and if 18% of undergrad CS degress are being awarded to women, why are so few of the qualified women choosing to further participate in the Open Source community? And why does that number continue to decline? Please explain the biological basis for some new evolutionary event that happened back around 1985 that would explain this?

And here we have main fault of this kind of "studies". They start with already made conclusion that problem is those nasty nerds who drive poor females away. And of course anybody who does not immediately agree is "part of the problem". That's how you conduct religious cult, not research.

Cute bumper sticker, but of course, you've provided no facts to back up your assertion that there's a biological basis for this disparity, either. You've hand-waved a lot of "uh girls have brain differences, so therefore maybe they don't like computers," mumbo-jumbo, and I've pointed out that there is absolutely no body of evidence to support this conclusion, and there is significant evidence that the disparities are cultural and social. Let's be clear: we're talking about very minor differences between two genders of the same species, not trying to argue that there's a biological basis for primates being tool makers on account of primates having opposable thumbs.

"There is no particular biological basis for this" . To me it seems like expression of certainty.

Yes, if you take what I wrote out of context to support your straw man, I'm sure it might seem that way. What I wrote was this: "Differences in interest" sounds like a nice way of saying "girls like dolls, boys like guns." There is no particular biological basis for this, so again, there'd be no reason to expect this to be the case, unless there is a cultural reason for it."

The "this" that I'm saying there's no particular biological basis to support is the "girls like dolls, boys like guns" assertion. If you'd like to point out some evidence for the elusive "liking guns" gene being sex-linked, I'd be more than happy to concede I was wrong on that point... but having studied biology, I'm fairly certain that you're not going to be able to provide any evidence for it.

"Anecdote from when I was 7" ? Where the hell do you see any anecdotes in my posts?

It was a challenge to you, not a statement that you used an anecdote. Provide *evidence* for your assertion that there's a biological basis for the disparities we're talking about, or start listening to the facts that suggest a cultural & social explanation for it.

I am not talking about ability - I don't see any reason to think that code produced by female programmers is any worse or better on average. I suggest that mental differences (you want biologi

So what? Check out any knitting club and you will see almost 100% females. And yet I don't see anyone getting too bent out of shape over this.

Are you really that stupid? Seriously? Let's look at the facts of the situation:

1) Women pursue development careers, and work as software engineers, in reasonably large (though still disproportionate) numbers - in 2009, 25% of computing jobs were held by women. (source)
2) That number is *decreasing* - in 1985, 37% of Undergrad CS degrees were awarded to women. In 2009, 18% of undergrad CS degrees were awarded to women. (source)
3) Most studies of Open Source communities show women's involvement at anywhere from ~1.5% to 5%. (source)

In other words: EVEN allowing for a "biological" difference to explain for the relatively low (and further declining) participation of women in Computer Science, the open source community shows an even sharper disparity - if 25% of computing jobs were held by women, and if 18% of undergrad CS degress are being awarded to women, why are so few of the qualified women choosing to further participate in the Open Source community? And why does that number continue to decline? Please explain the biological basis for some new evolutionary event that happened back around 1985 that would explain this?

And here we have main fault of this kind of "studies". They start with already made conclusion that problem is those nasty nerds who drive poor females away. And of course anybody who does not immediately agree is "part of the problem". That's how you conduct religious cult, not research.

Cute bumper sticker, but of course, you've provided no facts to back up your assertion that there's a biological basis for this disparity, either. You've hand-waved a lot of "uh girls have brain differences, so therefore maybe they don't like computers," mumbo-jumbo, and I've pointed out that there is absolutely no body of evidence to support this conclusion, and there is significant evidence that the disparities are cultural and social. Let's be clear: we're talking about very minor differences between two genders of the same species, not trying to argue that there's a biological basis for primates being tool makers on account of primates having opposable thumbs.

"There is no particular biological basis for this" . To me it seems like expression of certainty.

Yes, if you take what I wrote out of context to support your straw man, I'm sure it might seem that way. What I wrote was this: "Differences in interest" sounds like a nice way of saying "girls like dolls, boys like guns." There is no particular biological basis for this, so again, there'd be no reason to expect this to be the case, unless there is a cultural reason for it."

The "this" that I'm saying there's no particular biological basis to support is the "girls like dolls, boys like guns" assertion. If you'd like to point out some evidence for the elusive "liking guns" gene being sex-linked, I'd be more than happy to concede I was wrong on that point... but having studied biology, I'm fairly certain that you're not going to be able to provide any evidence for it.

"Anecdote from when I was 7" ? Where the hell do you see any anecdotes in my posts?

It was a challenge to you, not a statement that you used an anecdote. Provide *evidence* for your assertion that there's a biological basis for the disparities we're talking about, or start listening to the facts that suggest a cultural & social explanation for it.

I am not talking about ability - I don't see any reason to think that code produced by female programmers is any worse or better on average. I suggest that mental differences (you want biologi

The author of TFA should have RTFS(tudy). From page 19 of the PDF:

In 2008, technical women earned an average salary of $70,370.21
Over the same time period, men’s salaries averaged $80,357. Consequently,
the gender gap widened to 12.43 percent, a slight increase from 11.9 percent
the previous year and nearly a 3 percent increase from 2006 when the gap was
at 9.7 percent.
The good news is that this gap disappears when controlling for comparable levels
of experience, education, and job title. While this is encouraging news for
women who manage to advance in their careers, it does not account for the
barriers and biases that prevent many women from advancing to these levels.