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?"

Comments

Why so few women in the industry

[Pyr]

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.

There's just so much to say on this subject...

[CaptainCarrot]

I may ramble a bit. It's a big subject, and in my view there's a lot wrong.

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.