Slashdot Mirror
Gender in the Internet Age
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?"
Live is easier that way.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Ultimately, one is judged here by what he/she/it (gotta love inclusive language) can code...
This maybe construed as offtopic but I don't think it is...
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.
The first computer coders were women. Check your history of computers: they were initially coded by connecting wires in a switchboard configuration. Who do you think did that work?
Hedy Lamarr (besides being a sex symbol) helped design and patent spread-spectrum wireless technologies 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,
We can barely get women to like us! Now you want us to get them to be us?!
Note: this post not for the humor (or humour) impaired
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.
Finding God in a Dog
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
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
why do women want to define themselves by a man's standard? why try to get in on the internet and computer phenomenon? can't they think of something equally cool all by themselves? ;)
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
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
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
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
As recently pointed up by Nitrozac (herself a major geek-babe) in After Y2Y. This 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.
And the brethren went away edified.
See, I think a slip up like that is acceptable in that particular case. Cause it's rare you find any sort of super-attractive geek, of either sex...
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
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
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
"[Will women] be creators of software and virtual communities, or will they be disempowered users? "
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
I'm a female geek myself, and the reason there are so few women in the tech fields is not that they're discouraged or gender roles or glass ceiling or anything like that, it's just they don't want to. How many people REALLY want to spend all their time sitting in front of a computer banging out code - something most people find incredibly boring?
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.
This is just with five minute's looking.
Finding God in a Dog
Fairly obvious to whom? If we started trying to encourage women to be interested in technical matters, do you believe that women would continue to remain disinterested in the field?
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....
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, 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.
I have always advocated one of the great things about the net being it's ability for anominity and how people are judged on merit, not looks, sex, age, or education.
:)
/This/ is the kind of thing I like to see.
:)
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
I disagree with the statement that each gender thinks differently if you claim that it is because of biological reasons. I feel that if the statement were true it would probably be because cultural conditioning. If this is so WE CAN CHANGE what is happening. I have noticed the same thing you have in computer science classes. I found that the reasons these ladies dropped out of the classes was not because they were "not good at math" but because they were "missinformed" as to what computer science is.
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
"I can hoist a Jack. I can lay a track. I can pick and shovel too. I'll do anything you hire me to." - John Cash "Legen
Computer programming and the Internet are one of the few really equal opportunity workplaces in the world, or at least should be. Differences in physical abilities between men and women are not applicable here.
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.
Henry Fnord
The internet is colorblind, genderblind, and in fact, blind alltogether. The only way I even know what CmdrTaco's race is, is because I met him at LWCE. If you use an alias, nomme-de-net or just an initial for your first name, no one will ever know your gender.
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.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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.;)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
>or maybe a "hostile learning-environment" for girls Yes, I think most young women who take these classes do face a hostile learning environment. When I was in high school, the girls in electronics and mechanic classes were teased endlessly. The comments, from the students, teachers, administrators and parents were often something like "Why are you here, is Home Ec (or "art" full? This is a boys class, do you want to be a boy? What are you, a lesbian? MY GOD, YOU'RE WEARING PANTS!" Just like the 'glass ceiling' in the mostly-male management and technical fields, gender-bias in technical education classes is always apparent. If you know any of these women, -= Stefan
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
And I remember thinking, "Well why not organize a user interface that would appeal to the female way of thinking." Unfortunately having a penis I can't imagine what shape that interface would take. Maybe I should ask some of my female fr... Oh wait...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter. 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 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.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think you've nailed it on the head.
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.
I think two different things are occurring:
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."
Will in Seattle
Ada Lovelace, first computer programmer...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Some more comments after reading Strangers In the "Myst" of Video Gaming: Ethics and Representation
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)
There was a very interesting article in December's Delta Sky Magazine (but their web site didn't archive it.) mentioning that graduation rates (and I'm talking actual numbers, not percentages) of women in computer related fields is actually dropping. This seems pretty disturbing, given that this industry is so prosperous. I wonder if anyone has any actual figures on this.
ROFL myself- SFBA is about as representative of America's social climate as Neptune is.
-jacob
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. :)
Finding God in a Dog
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
----------
"If children weren't copyrighted, no one would have babies." -- Alex Eulenberg
The laws dictating gender roles in the IT industry are no different than any other industry in other periods of time. In every case where there was sufficient income for one person to sustain the needs of two, women dropped out and men assumed the providing role. It's no more different in IT than it was in advertizing in the 50's or biology in the 80's. Even the female engineering students can be seen following around their boyfriends, steadfastly waiting to graduate and stay home. And the women really expect it as surely as the sun sets. The IT industry is just like the 50's and you often wonder whether the re-emergence of the nuclear family we live in now is good or bad, because it's so ubiquitous.
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 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.
And the brethren went away edified.
"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.
And the brethren went away edified.
There are differences in the way our brains work (visual perception for instance - ever argue with your girlfriend about whether something's red or orange? We actually see a little differently.) but I think you'll find it's more cultural. For instance where I work the number of women programmers who are Indian or Asian far exceed the American women. One thing I notice is that most women prefer not to be very confrontational (ok, insert obligatory girlfriend joke here) as opposed to butt-headed nearly-juvenile guys who'll try to argue each other into submission in their engineering classes. (As I recall!) Also it seems to me there are a lot more women in the biological sciences than computers, and there's no less science going on. In any case few tech jobs (including programming jobs) actually require a CS degree, so that shouldn't stop them.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
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.
And the brethren went away edified.
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!
..don't panic
Sociologists, the people who study this sort of thing, have a more considered opinion. People in societies often do things because they want to, but their desires can stem from controllable culturally-constructed forces. For example, you probably wear clothes at school, and it's probably because you want to. But why do you want to? Partly for the physical reasons, but more because of stigma against nudity. There exist societies in which that stigma doesn't exist.
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.
-jacob
Apples and oranges. Hedy Lamarr was best known as an actress. Here's a modern parallel: Suppose it turned out that Michelle Pfeiffer was a top-notch Lisp hacker who happened to have contributed half the code for emacs. You wouldn't find that the least bit surprising?
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
Men are discouraged and encouraged; women are just plain discouraged. Sure, you might get called a dork and perhaps you'll even get beaten up for liking science and being smart- on the other hand, though, Albert Einstein was the person of the century. How's that for a positive role-model? And there are tons of them- I'd reckon (I'm from the South, so I reckon quite frequently by national standards) that by far the majority of "great" scientists, i.e. science role models, that you (or I) can name are men.
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.
-jacob
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 in the list of the management team at Element 14:
We start by you stop being Anonymous.
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
Calling all RL TTBs (Pyr, Miz, Wolf, Nancy, just to name a few), Kick Math Butt, babes! :-)
Nitrozac
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 was a woman, Laura Tweedy, 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?").
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 :-)
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
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
Well, after reading this discussion, I must say that Neal Stephenson was right when he wrote in Snow Crash that techie sexism was the worst kind of all, because it was practiced by guys who thought they were too smart to be sexist.
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
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 ;)
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!
..don't panic
A rhetorical tip for you: citing The Bell Curve as support for your argument is not likely to win you many adherents. That book is one of the most reviled and debunked books in recent memory.
-jacob
I have been a girl and I am now a woman. I have grown and changed. Truthfully, people place so much importance on gender. Importance should not be placed on gender but people. We are people foremost. People with burgeoning potential.
...what have women really accomplished!
....what happen to education? what happen to adding to the potential? If you are so interesting in creating a comfortable world..Why do it in the slow, careless and less creative way?
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
Truth like surgery, may hurt, but it cures. - Han Suyin, Chinese Physician and Writer
I went to a panel discussion in which six or so scientists eviscerated the book from several different angles, so I think it's safe at least to say that the book's science is controversial. One of the major arguments against Herrnstein & Murray's findings was that you can find the same statistical variances that they found between blacks and whites by comparing many different oppressed ethnic groups to their respective oppressing social groups- evidence that strongly suggests that social forces, not biology, are the real culprit.
-jacob
"If the average IQ (or whatever measure you wish) of a certain group is different from that of another group, that should come as no surprise (in fact, mathematical equality would be an amazing fluke)." Bzzt! Sorry, but wrong. Let's say that the "certain group" I pick is the set of all people in the United States with the letter S in their names, and the "another group" I pick is the set of all people in the United States without the letter S in their names. If it happened that I found that my chosen group did better than my other group, that would be amazing, and would certainly cause a sudden rise in the popularity of "Samson" and "Silas" as baby names for boys. The point is that far from being an amazing fluke if the IQs of the groups were the same, it would actually be an amazing fluke if the numbers were different. The reason why is that it seems utterly implausible that a person's name (specifically, whether or not it has an S in it) could have anything to do with his or her IQ. So the claim, unconditioned, that the average IQ of blacks must be different from the average IQ of whites actually means "there is some relationship between race and performance on an IQ test." It is an easy mistake, and one that the Bell Curve authors encouraged their readers to make, to say then that a person's race must affect his or her IQ, and then further that the IQ differences must be biological. Any decent book on statistics will point out the error inherent in those statements- in fine, it's that correlation is not causation.
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.
-jacob
Amen, sistah! =)
-jacob
The poster didn't make me angry, just made me feel the strong need to point out that he or she had a misconception as to what liberal thinkers think- a misconception that I think you might share. That people are all identical with respect to ability- that every single person has the same abilities as every other person- is obviously false. If you're born with no arms you clearly got a worse deal than your two-armed brothers and sisters. I am a fairly liberal guy (where "fairly liberal" means that I'm the sort of person Rush Limbaugh would want to burn at the stake), and I've heard a lot of liberal intellectuals argue, and I've never heard anyone seriously argue that all children are born identical with respect to abilities. What I have heard many times is that there's a very strong social component to success that often gets ignored by people who benefit from unfair social systems. It is easier to imagine, as The Bell Curve did, that black people are inferior as a race than to imagine that there could be a big invisible system that all of us participate in that is reflected even in IQ tests. But being easier to imagine doesn't make it true- for a plausible and very interesting alternative, read this article by a noted psychologist (I've posted the same link elsewhere on this topic, but it's really interesting and therefore worth repeating).
-jacob
The only statistical point that I was trying to make was that his argument (roughly summarized, that any subgroup will have different averages than the larger population) is exactly the opposite of the case.
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.
-jacob
no thanks, I already ate (:
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
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty