Slashdot Mirror
Women CS Majors Declining
/ writes, "According to a Wired interview with Dr. Anita Borg (her real name) of the Center for Women and Technology, the number of women majoring in CS has dropped considerably of late, as those in the field likely already know. She gives her thoughts on the causes and entertains some solutions."
It's obvious that women know nothing about computers.
Not to be completely off topic, but where I work at (large software company) there are more women than men in managment positions, and more men than women in the technical positions.
I may be wrong of course, because I haven't done a statistical enumeration of this or anything.
Aaron
Oh yeah.
there are less women than men who have the right mindset, i doubt its got much to do with "computer time"
A woman's place is the kitchen, not a computer terminal!
You hear that Jenny? Get your ass back in there and pour me a hot bowl of grits!
That really seems to be the way it's always been though. In high school, my AP computer science class had exactly 0 women in it. When I got to college, there was once again, 0 women in my first year of CS classes. In my classes now, there's 2, maybe 3 in a class of 25-30 people.
I don't know how representative that is of the world at large, but it's something that I've always seemed to run into.
I'm sorry.
This isn't necessarily a problem with the CS field itself, it could be that opportunities in other fields are starting to become more inviting to women. When looked at compared to some fields, like Business, CS hasn't exactly been extremely hostile to females in the past. Maybe less hostile environments in other areas are emerging, and that is causing a levelling-off of female CS majors?
This is a bigger problem, for the schools anyhow, than only one group reducing. If , however, the attendance of women is becoming smaller at a different proportion than Men or other groups, then there is a problem.
Chris DiBona
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
And I thought my chances of dating were improving greatly. Back to the whores, I guess.
Why do these studies always measure the number of women going into computer science? Why don't they also look at related fields such as electrical and computer engineering?
Also there are more women in English majors than men why don't they consider this a bad thing and start recruiting men to do more of the things that are traditionally female dominated?
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
I need a borg, too. ;)
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Off topic question; do people leave the subject lines to be filled last, after they finish writing their post?
Anyway, several thoughts do occur on this topic:
By the time you focus/target 'women', it may already be too late. They will have been left behind and ignored for too many years, I suspect. In which case any change you effect now, won't be visible for at least a handful of years.
What can be done? The problem is so complex, I don't know that it can be characterized. We're trying to change the social structure in very many places if we want more women in technology and the sciences; we either grow girls more like men(which I suspect men don't want, otherwise selective pressure would have already done this), we change the social model in which women can contribute(a top down approach? Grassroots? I dunno), or we change the way girls see and interact with technology and science. The problem with the third option is that there is no visible path, just a visible endpoint. More women in the field.
How do we deal with the fact that girls get different treatment? Can family support overcome that? How about the way we raise our girls? Can we modify it so that they remain uniquely female but still fit into the current structure of society, at least until social changes force society to adapt? Or do we create an role for the females that they currently do not occupy, but can fit in very easily with very little change, again until society adapts to allow more opportunities for girls?
Am I being to shortsighted here? Or perhaps my view is to narrow? Are there other options and paths we can look at and pursue?
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Women don't go into Computer fields simply because they do not have the logical and mental capacities necessary for the job. They prefer to use routine things that they have learned before to do something rather than work on new problems. Therefore they won't be as good at technical things as men!!!
Dear Open Source Man,
I am a girl in my late teens, so it is time for me to start thinking about a career. I have never really been interested in math or science and the boys always push me off the computer, so I don't really have an interest in computer science. The problem is, I read this article by a Dr. Anita Borg. She says we need more women in the computer science field. So, I think I should be getting into computer science. What advice do you have?
Thank you,
Suzie
Dearest Suzie,
You have come to the right place! What would you say if I told you there is a way to get into the computer science field without any background in math or science and without, in fact, even having touched a computer!?
What you need to do is go to Hollywood (what could be more exciting?!) and take up acting. You need to get your career going pretty fast so that you're still quite young when you hit it big. It may help to sleep around a lot.
Once you hit the big-time, write me back and I'll explain the Open Source movement to you! I'm sure you will find it a most agreeable way to break into the computer science field!
thank you
-
It's horrible to see what macho shit geeks posted.
Psychologist know that the biggest difference between Men and Women IS THE *** BRAIN ***.
Women can see more details, remember them, don't overlook things.
Men can think abstract, ie. have a better orientation sense.
When driving, a WOMEN should DRIVE,
while the MAN reads the map.
Women see streetsigns - men don't.
Men know they must turn left somewhere - women don't.
Women remember that Jack had a red tie on the last party, whilst her buddy doesn't even remember that Jack was there.
Just check these few examples and you'll see why it's harder for women to code,
and harder for men to see their own typing errors.
GOSH !! george./
That fewer women go into CS than men is not a problem to be dealt with, just a fact to be recognized.
Individual human beings should not be manipulated to shift demographic trends; it is immoral to do so. Incentives and media campaigns are as wrong as quotas.
So long as individual women are given the respect due their actual talent, without consideration of gender, there is nothing wrong with the fact that fewer of them choose to pursue education or work in any particular field.
As well complain that too few men are training for jobs as kindergarten teachers.
There are natural trends in any distinct human group. Fighting these trends is as unjust and damaging to individual persons as pigeonholing exceptional individuals into stereotypical roles.
At my college, Illinois Tech, there's a bunch. My TAs were female, my core has an ok number (maybe 10%, though), and in every CS class I've taken I always see a few. Not that its 50-50 or anything, but they are there. Actually, a requirement for any major is to take a CS class. Most take the standard first year basics, but in some departments they take fortran (ie chem) or basic (architecture), though not from the CS department.
On a core project I'm doing, there are two females in the 6 member group. Ok, to be quite honest they've been a pain to work with because they just don't care, but they'll have to as they are CS majors. But, the other guys haven't lifted a finger either (I've started programming as designing), though they're quite happy to think and ponder over the project with me. The two TAs though were sharp and extremely useful. I was actually thinking the mixture would go up, but maybe there's just to many guys jumping in. After all, CS is starting to look like a libral arts major...
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
that sucks. we need more women.
If you're a major Computer geek like myself, you probably found those CS classes pretty darn boring. I'd like to think anybody who is really a serious computer geek to choose a major which is challenging and new.
So, maybe you'd find a lot of highly technical women taking other courses. Just because you're not a CS major doesn't mean you're going to be a programmer/sys admin.
Isn't the problem getting women (and men for that matter) to choose computer science while they are in high school. I think that the problem is that there isn't enough computer science in high school - so the only people who are going to be interested are the nerdy boys (hi guys!). If cs was studied more at high school it would legitimise it for the girls.
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
So low numbers of tehnical women = male institution insensitivity? No, I doubt it. I think the girls briefly look at each major open to them, they see me and my friends in class and say "geez what a bunch of dorks. I don't want to work with those losers," and they move on to the next table. Low self esteem goes hand-in-hand with difficult majors, and girls these days are above that.
I am a CMU student, and the School of Computer Science has made an effort to admit more female CS students (beginning last year). The result is a lot of unqualified female CS students. My roommate's girlfriend is one.
Many of them know nothing about computers--there is a new intro course that teaches the most basic of basics (things that no other respectable CS school would find necessary to teach). It's only open to CS students, and the class is filled almost entirely with female students.
Just my observation--I have no problem with female students in CS or otherwise. I do have a problem with underqualified students. It might turn out that the decision was a correct one. The women might be better than the men when they graduate, and simply have to overcome the lack of CS interest in high school.
I suppose it remains to be seen.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Or looking for attention?
But you do have a decent point in your post. Where are the women going to, instead? I have an idea that, in such a hot employment market, women actually may just be opting out of work(is this a possibility, or totally wack?) and college entirely and going into marriage!
It's known that as the economy gets good or bad that students either tend to go to school or go to work. At least, it's a common meme, if not a fact. I would wonder if women followed a similar pattern.
And about recruiting men into those majors, the society we live in would laugh at the guys who go into those fields(not manly or macho or whatever). Just like women are made fun of as being stupid or not capable, when trying to enter some male dominated professions.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
In my 4 CS classes there are not more than 10 girls. What we need are better-looking geeks to attract them to the classes =). FP?
[ring, ring...]
Moe: Moe's Tavern.
AC:Yeah... I'm looking for a Dr. Borg... first name, Anita...
Moe: Dammit! I'm sick of all you fscking ACs prank calling me all the time! When I find out who you are, I'll kill you!
[Slams down receiver]
Dr. Anita Borg: Has anyone called while I was out? I'm expecting an important call from the last female CS Major on the planet!
Moe: Uhhhmmmmmm..... heh heh.... Look, lady... y'wanna free beer or something?
Borg: Free beer? How dare you imply that I could be tempted by that! I want free speech, dammit; not free beer!
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
First Post! I'm on a computer degree course, and the dept expressed great suprise this year because the number of women has shot up 20% Cool or what? :)
One look around the sausage factory I work at and you know this ain't no joke.
The women I know all think I use the computer too much. They also have absolutely no interest in knowing any more than they have to in order use them. Sure that's practical and all, but that's no way to become a skillful hacker.
You might as well be asking why there aren't more female mechanics or inventors. Most women don't seem to have that weird, driven curiosity that we here all understand far too well.
At some point women are going to have to take responsibility for their lack of curiosity. Especially if we have to take responsibility for fear of commitment! =)
EOF
This troll would have been a lot more amusing if it had had a punchline.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
No wonder they weren't doing their fair share of programming. It's hard to type with just one hand.
IMHO you're both exaggerating and overgeneralizing, but I'm not a sociologist. At any rate, if everything you say is absolutely accurate, why then I'd say that it's no wonder so much software is so damn buggy. Tour description of women sounds like somebody who'd really kick ass at debugging, but programming is a predominantly male profession (or schtick, or racket, or whatever you want to call it
Just a thought. I don't take it very seriously, but you asked us all to check your examples, and I did.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Broads belong in the kitchen, making pies and sweaters and babies.
Does it make sense?
I don't know, it seems like boys and girls get pretty equal access to computers these days, maybe it will increase over the years with the cheaper computer generation.
Although, there is a difference between CS and IT.
Does anyone have the stats on the IT world as whole?
feh. she doesn't even understand what a "cs" major does.
Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back.
I don't know what to say....does this sound really ridiculous to anyone else?
The other piece is the image of people who go into this field. The image is "geeks, gadgets, and greed." It's people who you don't want to be like.
I don't see how this is a gender-specific problem. Guys don't really like being social outcasts either.
I'm all for anyone pursuing the fields and dreams they wish without any barriers, but I have a feeling there is some genetic disposition that makes males and females sway towards certain fields. Most Nursing, Psycology, Elementary Education, and Physician Assistant students at my University are women. Most CS and Engineering students are men. I think it has more to do with natural intrests and abilities and less to do with environmental factors (although that may play a small part).
- Why do we need more girls for computing ? Is there a plan to kill all male Earthlings here ? WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS: We need more heavy weight female boxers. We need more gays on the catwalk. We need more men who get their dress-color scheme right. We need more girls who start smoking. _ Take a reality check before you post here ! george./
CS women are hounded upon by fellow CS men from the age of consent until announced clinically dead...
They must be assimilated into our collective!
Lord, I am laughing soooo hard... Are you serious? I mean, not about what is taught in a lot of colleges as CS, I totally agree. Been there, done that. But your comments about women not being able to learn Perl? Or learning to "imitate real skills"? Tell me you're being facetious. Please? I spent two years hanging out in CS, and I will tell you now that the handful of women in those classes were writing neater, more efficient code faster and more accurately than the guys, taken as a whole. If you're only "imitating" you can never be better than the original...
Women are minority in computer-related jobs here in Brazil, too. They're simply dont'feel atracted to coding and other geek jobs.
But the trend is changing. People are hiring more women. Why? Internet.
Lots of girls are finding jobs as webmasters (ok, webmistress) and designers at companies. But they're far away from the average geek girl like Nitrozac.
Maybe I can make some money out of it. What about a "PHP for Chicks" seminary?
[]'s Carlos Cardoso - Becoming a brazilian ProBlogger, typo by typo
Could the reason for the low numbers of women in tech fields have to do with the differences in the way the sexes think?
Women tend to look at things subjectively. They empathize and get hands on. Men tend to judge thinks objectively. They step back and try to get the big picture. Most tech fields reward objective analysis and design, but don't really like subjectivity. In engineering things are fundamentally judged on metrics not mushy feelings. In CS programs need to flow analytically and logically, again objectively.
I could be completely wrong of course. The real reason could be something like negative social pressure on adolescent girls, too.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
WOMEN NEED TO GET OUT OF THE WORKFORCE AND BACK INTO THE KITCHEN!
LINUX 4 EVER
Hell, I say there's a management vision shortage.
On behalf of all Slashdot men, I formally apologize for all these years of pushing females out of my way so I can check my e-mail. I hope it didn't intrude upon your career paths too much...
How about the theory that people tend to go with those skills that give them the most personal payoff?
The original geeks were those of us who lacked the smooth social graces that led to stellar careers in finance and insurance sales. The ability to think in binary wasn't highly prized.
At the same time, the ability to communicate and motivate isn't a lot of help in technical fields (leaving out 'managment') - unless you become an expert in getting grants.
Possibly all that's needed is a little pre-orientation for potential CS students, explaining that the computer doesn't care if you have a pleasant manner and a winning smile.
You can't negotiate with a computer. You can't motivate it. You can't get it to join your team. All you can do is write code the way the system wants it - and that's the only way it will work.
Oh well, I wasn't using those karma points anyway.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
I'm not saying women have no place in the CS world, or in any way saying they should avoid it, and I definately encourage anyone, regardless of sex, to persue what interests them.
on that note..
our society seems to be blind to the fact that, men & women are DIFFERENT. Statistically, we *DO* think differently. The generalization about women being more for details, men being more for abstract thinking is true as a STATISTIC, not a rule.
Am I saying women can't handle CS? No.. I'm saying that statistically, it doesn't interest them.
Do I think women shoudl be paid less than men for doing the same job? No. Do I think a CS position should be filled or not based on sex? Absolutely not....
but our society doesn't have to keep obsessing over why EVERY DAMN OCCUPATION isn't 50% male, 50% female. it will *NEVER* be that way.
Well, you're correct when you say that woman can't learn Perl. There is a reason, however .. and it is genetic. The thing about Perl is that as a language, it's very abstract; there are several different ways that you can accomplish the same thing. When you write or read Perl, you need to look at the code in a very abstract manner. Women just can't do this. The things that they are used to looking at (cookbooks and such) are very specific. That is, two tablespoons of this, four cups of that, sift this, shake that, suck this, etc. So women are simply unprepared for Perl coding; they lack the mental cognitive abilities that one needs to really excel at it.
I also agree with you about MIT and all the Eastern Liberals. It is beyond me why liberalism has not yet been criminalized. As long as people are allowed to brainwash unsuspecting students into accepting a hateful agenda of tolerance and multiculturalism, this country is not going to go anywhere. We'll be stuck in the sewer.
i am a senior in computer science in college now, and i have to say, that since freshman year, a lot of the chicks were dogs.
now, some of them are pretty cute, and a few a fucking hot!! i stare at them in class, and wishing i could set my null pointer to theres!!!
your thesis is posted at least a two dozen times every time this subject comes up on Slashdot. it's garden-variety stupid-loser orthodoxy, epidemic among guys who can't quite compete, and who therefore try to congratulate themselves for being male (because they've sure as hell got nothing else to be proud of). the only difference between you and the rest is that you recited the dogma more clumsily and incoherently than most of them do.
Men tend to judge thinks objectively.
oh, yeah? read fucking Slashdot sometime. you're no goddamn logician yourself.
More and more women are becoming successful in various businesses as executives, lawyers, etc. and depending upon which source you quote (extreme liberal, moderate, or far right), they are getting equal pay. If women aren't signing up for CS classes, why do people like Borg insist that we must "care" and force people to do things that maybe they decided they're not interested. If a woman is interested in computers or engineering, there is nothing hindering her in the U.S. from joining. The absolute smartest engineer I ever met was one of the few women in my engineering class in college. She had the aptitude and the interest to take engineering, many other women I meet just aren't interested, or don't think in the way that CS or engineering people do. There is nothing wrong with that! This nonsense that something is wrong with "the system" is specious babble used by everyone from Jesse Jackson defending violent thugs to criminals blaming society on death row and it is getting very tiring. If women want to study CS, they will. Furthermore, if she can generalize boys by saying "boys are wilder than girls", therefore they get more time on the computer, why is it that the statement "Maybe girls just aren't interested" valid? In general, perhaps boys are wilder and girls just aren't interested in computers.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
unless you happen to be a female or are of the homosexual persuasion, then having more women in CS is a good thing.
I go to a University for CS, and frankly there are hardly any women in the courses, and fewer as you get later in the years. I have to think this causes pressure for them along with the problems of the courses themselves.
:P
Also with the culture of it all, how many girls do you know that spend their high school life hanging out on irc playing with eggdrop bots and the latest cvs trees of anything, if you know of some I'm pretty shocked but they're probably real good lookers
Oh well just my thoughts and my firstish post!
Here at Carnegie Mellon, the number of female CS majors has actually been increasing in recent years. As mentioned in a related Slashdot article from last August, this year's freshman class is about 37% women, up from 8% in 1995. However, Carnegie Mellon's increasing numbers may be due to more aggressive recruiting.
Remeber tolerance isn't really tolerance unless you don't believe in anything.
slashdot sucks
Your title just seemed to invite people to attack you =)
How can an individual with only individual experiences determine that what they see is common or uncommon?
Of course it's a pretty common meme/concept that women are discouraged subtly, implicitly, and explicitly from technical fields. I can't say that it is the truth, just a prevailing idea. So I can't discredit your opinion, and I will admit I am being influenced by this meme.
Disclaimers aside, then, I will claim a very practical and pragmatic argument. If women weren't being discouraged in some way, shouldn't they be entering these fields on parity with men? It can be said another way; that we are encouraging men to enter these fields, and not women.
It doesn't mean that it is explicit or by design, that men are encouraged. Maybe there's too much baggage with the word, encouraged. Perhaps if we just said that the system favors males. What can we do then, to increase the focus on women?
Which has nothing at all to do with your point on your friend. There are guys like her too, at HP. It didn't stop them from going into a technical field. So a better question for your friend then is why does going into a technical field interfere with her desire to communiate with her friends?
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
In my Business Communications class a few weeks ago, we discussed in-depth some of the different strategies advertisement agencies use to target men and women, and how they stem from fundamental differences in the ways men and women think - starting from in the womb when testosterone severs half of the brains' connections in the male fetus.
Men are more task-oriented; they function better in repetitive, boring tasks such as stalking game, practicing musical instruments, and perfecting their jump shots. They prefer simple, direct ideas over complex issues. Hence the popularity of the Budweiser Frogs and the Swedish Bikini Team.
Women like complex, thought-provoking issues and projects. They tend to be extroverts in larger numbers than males and respond to emotional appeals better than men. Women flip the channel when the Budweiser Frogs or the Swedish Bikini Team appears.
Now, thinking back to those long, late-night hours spent slaving over the latest pointless Data Structures project, compiling, debugging, recompiling, and redebugging over and over, it suddenly isn't such a mystery why more women don't want to be CS majors.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I'm one of the Senior Coördinators of the Kill All Male Earthlings Foundation. Our mission is to do exactly that. Our Agenda is to destroy society first by means of rampant drugs and immorality, and second by allowing girls to use computers. It's a diabolical scheme, and we're quite fond of it.
Being both a Computer Scince and Psychology major, I hear professors from both majors complaining about the lack of sexual diversity in these majors; psychology being female dominated, and obviously computer science being male dominated.
I'm wondering, where are the roll models for woman in computer science? Ada Lovelace or Alan Cox?
Universities teaching useless stuff, rather than practical skills?
Maybe the problem isn't colleges teaching useless theoretical stuff, but that community colleges aren't pulling their weight. THAT is the place for practical skills.
I've finally reached my fourth year of a CS programme at a university. Do you know what? I took a distributed systems course. Boring as all hell. I learned about TCP/IP, ethernet, ATM, rpc, and, finally, all sorts of mostly internet protocols. (and some time sync algorithms, blah, blah, blah) While I already knew more than half the course, the other half I could have read in a couple of days in a book. That sort of stuff is for community college. It's for people who somehow have difficulty learning it on their own. (I was disappointed they didn't get into CORBA or even DCOM indepth -- it's a book I haven't gotten around to reading yet.)
The other two courses I've been taking consist of formal languages (from finite automata to turing machines), and now principles of programming languages (so far lambda calculus and now type systems and ML). THIS is the stuff for university. This is stuff I'll never learn in the real "practical" world. University is here to teach me a broader perspective on technology and computing. It's here to open my mind to radically alternative ways of looking at the same thing -- even if it doesn't turn out to be the latest fad in computing.
My conclusion? I think that, perhaps, those who go to university expecting to learn practical real skills belong in a community college. (mind you, many of those in my area could be a much more higher quality than they are) I think MIT has the right idea teaching Scheme in first year. It shocks people into realizing that there's a lot more to computing than they thought.
Mark
Hmm tell me something I haven't already noticed
Well I must say that this is very relevent in my life now cause my girlfriend is switching her major from C.S to what? I have no clue. the resson? and I quote "I hate the damn math" owell we can only hope that more Girls will start to love programing like the rest of us guys do. later, Lowtech
"011110010101111101110101 0110000101111001001100101 01100100011101010110110101100010 "
For example, my fiance and I are working on a mail client. Who's doing 90% of the coding? I am. Why? I can program better than him. Gender has nothing to do with that. He's just into different aspects of computers.
As far as the enviroment of computer science being hostile to women. I've personally experienced out right hostility (like some of the posts), but also I've met a lot of people who don't care what race or gender you are, just that you can do the job.
Also women aren't going into computer science because they see a table of geeks and run the other way. The only person I've ever met that chose a major based on if his or her friends were in that one, was a man. Does that mean now that men just briefly think about their majors and don't give it any thought?
Comments like "women don't know anything about computers" or "women are genetically incapable of working in techinal fields" just show to me that some people out there just don't get it. Women weren't originally allowed to go to college because our brains were too "small." Yet Albert Einstein had one of the smallest, compact brains ever recorded.
One of the apparently rare women in computers.
Old story
Josh
That there are not enough people in technical fields. Women, which make up 50% of the population, are therefore an untapped resource. As are minorities, who also don't get into the technical fields(as compared to Caucasian or Asian)
I ask why it is immoral to manipulate people to shift demographic trends? If a person has an infinite number of options open to them; even if it is a finite number of options, for the example, why is it wrong to try to get them to chose a particular option?
And what does this have to do with 'trend'? It's just a job, a career, work, and nothing to do with life, or personality, or behavior!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Fact is, I have used very little of a computer science education, since nobody really told me that computer _science_ is really a preparation for further academic work in the field--experimentation, research, invention--rather than business use of computer skills. MIS wasn't technical enough, didn't give enough programming experience. CS was way over my head in terms of the required mathematics classes and the general political structure.
I would have been better off with some tech school programs, along with some specific training courses in commercial UNIX systems, routing/switching, and other useful things. So are about 75% of the people who go into a Computer Science program--it just isn't an optimal way to enter the workforce as an administrator or programmer.
Now, I appreciate the academic angle I learned through completing my degree, once I realized my half-error. I _did_ learn many useful skills, but most have had to be twisted and modified in order to really apply.
Perhaps this is one reason attendance is dropping, among women or any other group? We're so bent on college educations, because the employers are as well. Employers ask for things like Bachelor's degree (Master's preferred) in CS plus 15 years of experience in Windows 2000 and 30 years of experience in PC hardware. This game really needs to stop somewhere, it's an endless triangle--businesses, educators, students--but any one party that stops playing the game stands the risk of being unemployable while everyone else continues to play.
MUHAHHA
Bring more CS majors to Seattle.. hint hint... Sincerely, A SPU CS major...
That's because it's a hella lot easier to fake good management than fake good code!
I could probably name 10 women supermodels without even THINKING about it, and I'm sure women could too (ruling out the sex appeal argument), so why is it that I cannot name eve ONE male supermodel? I think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed immediately, I think men should be able to be supermodels, too, and I don't think they're being encouraged enough at a young age. If more boys were taught by their parents that they could be beautiful too, maybe we'd see a bit more equality in the supermodelling field.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
I suppose the true reason there are more men and women is some fields is that the ratio of men to women in the general population is close to 50/50. Since some fields have more women than men, other fields must have more men and women for it to average out. What the center for women and technology (I hate hypocritical organizations like this who preach about equlaity but have sexist name like center for women and the implied and not men) needs to do is convince women that computer science is better than information science, or actively discourage women from entering fields like education or psychology where they are a majority. Or they could try to get more men to enter fields that have more women in them.
I have to admit your jokes are funny and I couldn't help but laugh. It's wrong as hell but I laughed.
If you ever say this in real life, though, it's gonna be even more hilarious when some chick punches you into next week and you wind up coming back to this week to retrieve your teeth.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
She also doesn't suggest any positive steps that any woman who wants to be a geek can take. It's all the men's fault, and there's nothing women can do about it!
As a male student majoring in CS, I can say that I've noticed this.
Borg: I think that's a fairly spurious argument because the whole question of why we are not interested in [math and the sciences] is a really significant one. We're clearly doing something wrong.
But then she goes on to say that the agressive boys pushed the girls off the computer during childhood, and that is why they are not interested. So the boys are more agressive and the girls just accept it. Since they are different, couldn't they also have a difference of interests. I'm not coming down on women or anything, but I do believe there are some differences that are more than the way we are raised. I believe we should give everyone all the opportunity they can have, but I don't believe we need to push anyone in to a certain area.
"In many research labs and beyond, the :accepted model for deciding whether someone has a good idea is their ability to do battle and defend it. The way you play with an idea is to attack, attack, attack. And if the person is left standing at the end if it, then their idea must have been good. Now I think that's simply a bad filter"
It's called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD sweetheart. Get used to it.
I would think this would almost be a seasonal thing. I think we'll be seeing more girls in the clubhouse in the future.
b3f0R3 anyOne taKez umbrag3 at wHAt 1'm about to say, let m3 3xpLa1n That mr. bI|L gat3z'Z r3|atIOnShip T0 Th3 r3al w0rld iz 3MpHAT1cAl|y p3r1PH3Ral. 1nSt3Ad 0f FOcusing oN WHy a|l 0f the Anx1ouZ s1ghing, |onGing, and Hoping 0f bi||'Z h3Art 1z D1r3ct3D t0 a t1m3 wH3n pRof|1gate indiviDualz Can suck3r uz 1Nt0 buyiNg a |ot of junk W3 dOn't ne3d, i would l1K3 to r3m1nd PE0PlE that 1 muSt, on pRinc1pl3, R3InForc3 n0Ti0NZ OF positIvE s3lF 3st33m. p|ain|y Stated, w3'R3 AlL iN Th1Z M3sz TOg3ther. b1||'z Magic-bU|let 3xplanat10NZ ar3 oFTeN disR3gArd3D mer3Ly Az 0Rn3ry & ArE CoNs3qU3nt|y noT tr3At3d az th3 S3Ri0uz Assau|TS on |IB3RTy and FrEedoM that tH3y und3Niab|y aRE. pl3aS3 d0n't m1SrEad my W0rDz her3; b1|L'z 3ditoR1a|Z aR3 iN cOnfl1ct wiTh Acc3Pt3D morality. b1L| do3z nOT des1r3 to ben3fit HUmAN1TY, but RAth3r t0 d1lut3 tHe nAti0N'Z s3Ns3 oF c0mMOn pUrpos3 & shAr3d Sacrif1Ce.
U may B3 P1Ck1nG up 0n soM3th1ng h3re In All 0f my resPonseZ t0 hIz conCEiTeD ID3a|z. al| Of my r3spONS3z Presum3 That h1Z act1OnZ ar3 a hotBed of n3potism. conS1d3r tH3 IsSu3 0f cYn1ca| juju1sm. 3v3ryon3 agr33Z ThaT 1n aDdiTion T0 c0mmUNicat1Ng an unDerstaND1nG 0F tHe t3Rribl3 dang3r w3 faC3, 1 n33d To oPen Studentz' 3y3z, m1ndz, h3artz, aNd s0ulZ t0 th3 w0rld around TH3m, BUt ther3 Ar3 st1l| som3 S3M1-1nt3|LiG1b|E MYsticz 0UT tH3r3 wh0 doubT that h3 resPectz noth1nG, h0norz n0tH1Ng, and valu3Z NOTH1ng b3yOnd hiMS3lF. to them i say: h3 r3pr3s3ntZ Th3 most r3C3nt incarnat10n Of tHe uNiqu3 20tH-ceNtury ph3NOm3nOn kN0wn az "BlockIsH anarchisM".
The FIRST Casua|ty 0f bill'Z Act1Viti3z 1Z jUSTiC3. as 1 unDeRstand 1t, bIll WaNTZ NoTh1Ng l3sz Than tO Blitz M3DiA outLeTz WitH fax3z & n3wS|etT3RZ thAt hiGhliGhT th3 G0od p0Intz oF hIz mora|LY-qu3stIonAbl3 irR1tating zIng3rz, henc3 h1z r3peat3D, alM0St hYpnotic, inSisteNc3 on the imp0rtance of h1z W1Ck3D wh1ng3Z. sOm3thiNG r3cEntLy 0cCurr3d to m3 ThAt m1ght ocCur to bIl|, az wEL|, IF H3 W0Uld just turn d0Wn TH3 VO|umE 0f hiz v01C3 foR a mOm3nt: b1|l Sp0utz tH3 saME bI|e 1n 3v3rythiNg h3 wRit3Z, MaKinG on|y Slight M0diF1cati0nz tO suit th3 1sSue at haNd. th3 isSue h3'z excitEd aboUT thiz WE3K 1Z un1|at3ralism, wH1cH sayz t0 mE thAT caM3rAl1sm 1s correcTly D3fiNed by 1tZ blath3rIng sty|3, STrUcTur3, And m3th0dz, not bY itz StAt3D oR APpar3Nt 1d3O|Og1cal pr3m1Sez Or goa|Z. TH3 id30lOg1cAl undErPinn1ngz 0f hiz 3xp0stUlaTIonz hav3 sTrUck a r3c3ptive cHORd Among th0Usandz of AnA|-reT3nT1v3 maD GuTt3R-dw3ll3rz. buT |3T'z NoT qU1bB|e about that.
wHen 1 firsT 3NC0UNT3R3D bi||'Z r3fra1Ns, A|| 1 c0uLd Think of waz, "THe Nic3sT tHing that can b3 sa1d aB0ut Bill'z cR0nI3Z iz that th3y ar3 0PprESsiv3 Prot3sT0rZ OUt t0 r3Tain an inSt1tut1ON whiCh, twIst & TuRn Az U |ik3, iz aNd r3mainz a dISGRAc3 to hUmaN1ty." whY do w3 put up witH bill? 0ddLy 3NoUGH, hiZ argum3Ntz wOu|D b3 a Lot mOr3 3ffect1v3 1f they W3re At L3ast accURAt3 0r int3|l1GENt, N0t Just a |0ad OF bU|l f0r the sak3 of b31ng C0nTrov3rS1A|.
ther3 arE tw0 mAin flawz with Hiz Litan13Z: 1) hiz |AcK3yz argU3, AGaiNsT a st3Ady AcCr3t10n of factz 0F Alr3adY mOuntA1NoUz pr0PORtI0nz, tHat wE'D ALl bE better 0Ff 1f th3y'd JUst d3PR3ssuriz3 Th3 Fra1| vessel of human h0p3Z, AND 2) tH3 N33D h1z h3nChMeN hav3 for hiz 1n1mical Pl0yz iz eSp3C1ally strong az A m3anz of transF3rring BlAm3 -- an 0uTl3t for th3 dEspa1R THey Fac3 Wh3n NOrma| cHaNn3lz of PROTEST & CHanG3 ar3 CL0s3d. MayB3 bill haz a rEason f0r acting Th3 wAY h3 dOez, BuT i doubt iT. h3 sUpPOrTZ a wide VaRiety of CoMmunicatI0NZ. some are putrid; oth3RZ ar3 incOmp3T3nT. a FEw 0p3nlY suPPoRT obscurant1sM. isN't 1t H1sToriCa||y d3monstRaTEd THat h3 aLwayZ tR13z t0 ShifT blaM3 fR0m Hims3lf T0 tH3 moST off1Ci0uz Insurr3ct1oN1stz i'v3 3VEr S3en? don't miSuNd3RstAnd M3; i'M not saY1nG tHaT m3d10cRiTY & n0rmalcy arE id3al virTU3z. IN fact, he iz Int3nT1ona|ly b3ing shabby.
it'z a w3L|-knoWn FAcT thAt iT'z time for b1|l To stop h1z systematic ASsault on r3|1G1Ouz fr33dom. it'z an 3qUAl|y wel|-known faCt thAT ther3's s0m3th1ng s3v3r3lY wrong WIth th1z p1ctur3. Wh3n logic puTz th3Se tw0 factZ tog3tHer, tH3 N3C3sSary R3sU|t 1Z An uND3rstand1ng thAt B1l|'z ASsertiOn THAT he IZ fOrward-LO0KINg, op3n-mind3D, & cr3aT1V3 seRV3z on|y tO illuStrat3 H1z 1gn0rAnc3 & P0or|y HiDDeN B1goTry. tO d3ny that hE haz a hidd3n ag3nDa iZ n3URotic N0nS3NS3 And P0lITicAl irr3spoNsIb1lITy. 1t 1Z nons3ns3 B3CAuse H3 SH0wz a c0Mpl3t3 LaCk oF foresight. and it 1z irreSpoNsibl3 b3caus3 he 1z a very cO|d-blO0deD l1TtL3 MAN. the uNd3rlY1Ng m3SsAgE iz thAT Soci3Ty as A wh0l3 sh0Uld acT Az a un1fyiNg forcE to EstabliSh A SuppOrt1v3 -- raTh3r than an 1NT1midATing -- atMospher3 For oFferIng Pub|Ic comm3nT.
0n th3 1ssU3 oF nAtIv1SM, b1ll iz wr0Ng aga1N. suR3, ThIz iz suff1Ci3ntly ilLustRat3d by th3 r1d1cuLe with WhIcH h1z AgenDaZ Ar3 tReAt3D by 3v3ryOnE oTHeR thaN lEWd so1-d1saNT d0-g00deRz. But last summ3R, 1 att3Mpt3d whAt 1 kn3w Wou|d B3 a hop3l3sz Task. 1 tri3D T0 coNv1ncE BILl thAT C0mpass1on aNd moRA| prIncipl3 ar3 not Th3 mAin m0tiv3z For Hiz ACti0nz. az i 3xP3ct3d, b1Ll Waz toTAlly unconvinc3d. Why Do3z He Want t0 d1rect sOcIaL activity TOward phi|aNTHr0p1C fL1M-flaM rath3r thAn towARd th3 3liMiNat1on oF tH3 basic d3fici3nci3z in Th3 0rganiZati0N 0F oUr 3conom1c & cultura| l1f3? th3 anSWer 1z n0t obVioUz. w3Ll, b1ll, w3'Re alL g3tting a littLe t1r3d of U And UR k1Nd meSsiNg up tH3 wor|D & th3n reFuSING to Acc3pt r3SpoNsiB1L1Ty F0r whAt yOu'vE Done. W3'R3 f3d uP. and th3 day iZ com1NG WH3n U'|l b3 he|D acCOUNtaBle fOr UR sUrly asS3rt1onz.
mayB3 it'z noT fa1R t0 CaLL HIs ass1stantZ "R3pUgnant" jusT b3caUse Th3y inF1|tRat3 Th3 MeD1A with The expR3sz purpose 0f D1ss3mInat1nG s1lly Information, bUT r3m3mb3r ThAt whEn h3 h3arz Anyon3 say tHat we mUsT c0O||Y & obj3ct1vely aDOpt thE StandpOiNt ThAt he iz chomp1Ng aT th3 Bit F0r a chaNCe to fOrc3 uz t0 tail0r 0uR ventur3z Just TO su1T Hiz stUbBorn whImz, hiZ answer iz t0 Paint P1ctur3z oF p3STi|3ntIAl wor|DZ 1nhaB1t3D bY Maladro1t S3lfish MalcoNtentZ. THAT'z sim1LAr T0 tak1ng a few dRunk3n sw1ngz at a b33H1V3: 1t juSt Mak3Z m3 waNt 3v3n mor3 To tak3 personal act1on & pURg3 The DarkN3Sz fRom hiZ h3Art wHIl3 r3ma1n1nG true t0 ThOs3 beli3Fz, 1D3Alz, and aspiRat10nz w3 Hold most d3aR. 1t iZ th3R3F0Re R3asOnab|3 t0 Inf3r THat hiZ s1MpL1sTic reasonIng Fo|L0Wz the sam3 fa||aCI3Z az s0 mANy 0Th3r tr3atis3z on Sim1lar iSsu3s.
B1|l TH1NKZ That ch1lDr3N sH0uld g3t into CaRz with straNG3rz WhO waV3 |OTz of YUMmy c&y At th3m. 0f COurSe, thINking S0 d03Sn't mak3 1t so. 1'L| trY not to dw3|| On tHiz, bUt hiz iD30|ogI3z S3RVe n0 PURpose otH3r Than to D3Fus3 Or uNderm1n3 1NC1s1v3 cr1T1qu3z of hiz pusil|aniMoUZ b3haV1oR by turnIng th3m 1nTo pROc3duRal arGUmentz aBout mechanisMz 0f insTitUtional r3StrA1nt. Az far aZ 1 caN te|L, FOrB3aranc3 aNd k1ndly d3P0rTment ar3 |Ost Up0n b1|l.
what hE Do3sn't R3al1Z3 iz ThaT 1f anYth1ng, d3baT3 With H1m 0r a seaRch for coMmon Gr0und 1z B0th a fru1tlesz 3X3RCise anD a sUiC1dal stRat3gy. P3rhapz bIll iz d0Ing Th3 verY th1NG for wh1Ch h3 cRit1cizez 0THerz, buT reM3Mb3r that hiZ He|p3RZ All lo0k lIk3 hiM, Th1Nk lik3 hIm, act |ik3 h1m, & d3liV3r an additi0na| Bl0w tO D1gN1tY And S3LF-w0rTH, jUsT |1k3 h1m. & a|| Th1z in tHe namE of -- l3T m3 Se3 1f i can gEt th31r prOpag&A sTra1gHt -- bROth3rh00d & sErviC3. ha! hiz p3rv3rsionz ar3 M1r3d in CantanK3rouz dup|1citoUz s0L3c1sm. 1t iZ ALso W0rThY OF n0tE tHaT H3 iz right About oNe tHiNg, naM3ly That F3ar 1z what moTivat3Z Uz. feaR OF WhaT 1T m3aNz wh3n vIo|ent traITorz DEmonStRAt3 an outr1ght hOsti|Ity tO |aw enFOrc3m3nt. f3ar 0f what it sAyZ Ab0ut 0uR soCiety WH3N wE T3Ach OUr ch1|dr3n that Ev3rything 1Z hAPpy And fin3 & G00D. & f3aR oF prImItiv3 tUrnc0aTz |1K3 b1|l who stult1fy ArT & r3TARD Th3 3nJoyment and ADOration of ThE b3aUtIful. lEt m3 Cl0S3 by remIndiNg U that thEr3 iz anotH3R s1d3 TO th3 Issu3.
Even the number of male CS majors has gone down haven't they? I am a CS major, and damn... it can be extremely demanding. My problem with the CS department here at my school is we have to learn tons and tons of theory... yea yea, it is great and all, and some of it is interresting, but I have worked on several projects....from games to ftp clients and never have I had to build a Finite Automana (shit I can't even spell it), or solve eulers trail...or be able to convert a base 61 number to base 10 in my head... Geez give me a break. I agree about wemon in CS... In all of my CS classes there is a total of 3 women... ouch. But I will say this, all of the females in my classes are brilliant, so the quality has not gone down ;> ---------------------------- Ya ya I know I posted anonymous coward, I forgot my damned password
I work as the lead Unix sysad for 9th Air Force, one of the neater aspects of my job is to train brand new people that have joined the military. Some of these people have never even used a computer before their technical school. Right now I am working with a young girl who had never used any type of computers before joining the Air Force. She, in the last month now knows basic Unix, basic Korn shell, regular expressions (Full), as well as a good deal of Perl.
I think more women would use and learn about computers if the people who taught them didn't do so in a condescending competitive way. (I do admit though, I am a very tough teacher, however I am fair).
Unfortunately, computers with men is taken in the same way as men tend to gloat about their 400hp engines in their cars, or their 3200db car stereo. Women (that I have worked with) don't seem to be into the ultra-competitive side, but are instantly intrigued by the logic of it...
-Dextius Alphaeus
-- Java is not a Jedi trait... "do, or do not, there is no try" --
I think MIT has the right idea teaching Scheme in first year. It shocks people into realizing that there's a lot more to computing than they thought.
Womanly pseudo-male hermaphrodite that you are, it's only natural that you should babble about your "feelings", but it's not at all natural that I should waste my time listening. Why? Beause I am a fully functioning male organism, and therefore incapable of understanding "feelings", much less taking an interest in them.
But that's as may be, and we're not here to discuss the innate superiority conferred upon me by my gender, obvious though it may be.
No, what we're here to discuss is the state of CS education in the US today, and you're clearly one of the wreckers bent on destroying what little is left. Education is about wealth-creation . Skills that are not of immediate use in increasing shareholder value are not relevant and should not be taught. Such "skills" are of no worth. Show me how to turn a profit on Scheme. SHOW ME NOW. NOW. Bzzt! Time's up. Can't do it? Nope. I thought not. Scheme is of no worth. It has nothing to teach us. Computing is about wealth-creation , and absolutely nothing else. Wealth creation is the only human activity that can be morally justified. Anybody who wastes his time on anything else is a moral cripple, and is certain to be criminally inclined. Such people should be locked up pre-emptively before they give in to their criminal impulses. The safety of the community demands it.
University is here to teach me a broader perspective on technology and computing.
If your mind is not open first and foremost, at all times, to the creation of wealth, you are a diseased parasite.
It's here to open my mind to radically alternative ways of looking at the same thing -- even if it doesn't turn out to be the latest fad in computing.
This just goes to show how wretchedly inadequate your so-called "education" has been. The first maxim of Perl (and a favorite saying of our beloved Leader) is that "There Is More Than One Way To Do it". Perl teaches more "alternative ways of looking at the same thing", and colleges teach precisely the opposite. They brainwash students to use restrictive, orthogonal languages like LISP (is there any more orthodoctrinaire and restrictive language on Earth than LISP? No, there is not.), and they deliberately reject Perl because Perl, and only Perl, can teach people to think creatively. Creating thinking is the greatest enemy of higher education, and they aren't about to let it happen if they can do anything to stop it.
This is why so many students have been expelled and blacklisted from so many major colleges after getting caught working with Perl. Careers have been destroyed to maintain the East-Coast CS oligarchy. Some students have even been killed to keep them quiet. Perl is dangerous contraband on our nation's campuses, much like the Bible. Did you know that the Clinton administration has banned the export of Perl? Get your head out of the sand and learn some facts, brother. You won't much like what you see.
I don't rember anyone fighting to get on a computer in high school. Usually they would collect dust. Her argument about aggressive males capitalizing time on computers does not hold water.
The problem is not that women are not being *accepted* into computer science or that they are not smart enough. The fact is computer science and other technical majors are very difficult. Without having a good study group or a mentor, women may feel overwhelmed in a technical major and decide to switch to non-technical major. I would know, because I have left EE and CS. Although I would have liked to receive a technical degree, I didn't want to suffer through classes that I did not really have my heart into.
The above post was created by an automatic complaint generator. It's on the web somewhere, but I left the link at work. Just search Google for "Complaint Generator" and something should turn up.
Anyhow, it was funny once, months ago, but now it's just repetitive and boring.
In my experience I really don't see any barriers that girls face while growing up making them not interested in computers. While I was growing up it was usually the girls who played The Oregon Trail on the Apple II and the boys played with G.I. Joe action figures. When I was in grade school if you played with the girls on the computer you were considered gay or weak so you it was best not to play on the computer with them or else. I never really got into computers until I was 10 years old when I got a computer at home. I talk to a lot of girls from varying ages and most of them like using the computer as a tool, but just aren't interested in going into the IT field. In fact a lot of the younger (13 to 18) girls I talk to just like chatting online and really don't like using the computer for much else. You try encouraging them and try to get them interested and they just don't care all they like to do is chat with their other friends. I really don't think it's a matter of that girls don't get enough computer time while in school. I really don't believe the example that Mrs. Borg gave about boys pushing girls away from the computer and parents/teachers allowing it is just plain bad teaching/parenting. It's along the same lines as another kid taking away a toy from another child would you allow that? So why would you allow this? Any way I just think it's a matter that girls just don't like being in the IT field as much as guys do. I really don't see the problem in it. I wish there would be more girls that like the IT field then I could find someone that has more stuff in common with me, but time and time again I find plenty of women who just aren't interested even if you try getting them interested. So really, if women aren't intrested then what's the problem? Why try forcing someone into something they don't want to go into?
When I was in college, and again latter in uni there were *very few* women in any of the three majors (CS, CIS, MIS) in the department so if the numbers are going down then there must be none at all left now. Fortunately that isn't the case... I was talking to someone on campus at uni last week and he mentioned there were about thirty women in the program now; that kinda matches what little I remember of the incoming class of frosh the summer after my "last" year ;} there were a LOT of young ladies in those tour groups and early summer classes.
I have to agree with a lot of what Dr. Borg is saying here, and it's really pathetic that this is the case. I can't think of a single women in my graduating class that wasn't in the top handfull of students, ditto the class before me. I generally found that the women in my classes and the ones I work with now are the better engineers, certainly on several occasions I can look at a project group that had maybe four people and say that the women on the group did more than their 25% of the share. It was always interesting to watch the group when it was say four guys and see how things got done, then watch those same four guys on the next project when one of the ladies in the area got added to their group... there was a very subtle change in the group dynamics and a very severe change in the quality of the work. Now I know in a couple cases it was because the guys were ashamed that a "girl" did better work than they did... but then I had also worked with that young lady before, they didn't have a chance - she out-classed them.
I wish there was a more natural balance of men:women in hard core computer science - and not because they're a welcome sight after staring at code for hours on end or sitting in design meetings that just won't stop - it's because their very presence in the group alters the balance and their different perspective and methodology is always beneficial.
I must complain about the above quote. The whole article is written by someone very very good at 'newspeak' - always evading questions and giving answers with absolutely no real content.
The above comment, however, obviously shows a dislike for the very *nature* of being male. The author is saying we should stop boys from being agressive, instead of saying that a medium amount of agression, properly harnessed, is a good thing that we should be encouraging in girls. It's the difference between positive and negative reinforcement... are the boys doing anything wrong by trying to monopolize the computer? No. That's what boys do. Should we be protecting girls from boys (especially from the computer geeks?)? Probably not.
To accept the above quote would be to degrade the women who are 'wilder and more agressive', and I'm not willing to do that.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Is it possible that fewer women are interested in *geek* endeavors because women tend to be more social and relationship oriented, which does not harmonize well with the long hours of solitary concentration typically required to be *geek*?
How much is nurture vs. nature? Ah... the age old controversy.
Political correctness will never allow a real answer.
... in CS should be declining! They belong in the kitchen. Women are the property of the men. Live with it ladies.
Women like complex, thought-provoking issues and projects
Oh, thank you for informing me that I don't like complex, thought-provoking issues. I guess that explains the lack of male philosophers.
Men are more task-oriented; they function better in repetitive, boring tasks such as stalking game, practicing musical instruments, and perfecting their jump shots
Again, thankyou for clearing up why I sometimes get the sudden tendancy to go kill deer with spears. And why I LOVE boring repetitive tasks! Yeah! Bring on the mindless boring repetitive tasks!
YECCCCCH
This page is not good HTML
keep these two posts together...
I guess we need more sex changes. :)
Since I'm an Asian(Chinese) and where I went to school(Caltech) we weren't a minority(in technical and scientific fields)
If you were to count us in, perhaps, the cinema majors of other schools, we would count as a minority. And perhaps even if you were to do a general population count in the US. But not in engineering/science fields =)
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Perhaps if we offer females more scholarships for science we can help reverse this trend. I sure hope so...
In 22 years I saw 98% of female programmers quitting, because they just couldn't do it. They TRIED HARDER THAN EVERY OTHER MAN, but they still couldn't do it.
You may have seen that, though people usually see what they want to. In any case, it's not relevant. I wasn't claiming to have "proven" that women can code (though I've known a few women programmers, and they succeeded at about the same rate as men). That wasn't my point at all. My point was that you were telling us all about how women's minds work, and what you were describing is somebody who'd be good at debugging. Well, then, either women are good at debugging (which is only one part of programming, by the way), or else your description is not as accurate as you think. Hey, it might even be both.
In any case, I didn't have an "argument". I just looked at what you'd posted, drew a conclusion that seemed obvious to me (obvious enough that it really jumped out), and threw it out for discussion. Focussing too narrowly can make it very damn hard to find bugs. In my experience, the bug is not often where I think it is, and I'm very often led to it by noticing some small thing that I missed the first few times I stepped through. On the other hand, there's more to programming than finding bugs. Hell, there's more to human beings than a few oversimplified orthodoxies. I'm not claiming to have any answers, nor am I trying to start a flame war. If I created that impression, I apologize.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
In every article of this type the adversarial nature of research is blamed on the lack of women in science and technology. Then they go on to attack the stereo types that women must face. Yet this is a stereo type along with women are more socialized then men and women workers must be nutured to succeed in IT.
It's a sad thing that the most famous computer woman computer scientist in the news these days is there because she's posing for playboy. Well there are undoubtedly many others, but she of course jumps to mind. Mugsy
These articles are coming out, it seems, every few weeks. And every few weeks, there is new fuel for the "women just don't make good geeks" fire.
There will always be exceptions to every generalization anyone cares to make about people, but I think Dr. Borg is really trying to get to societal dogma. Our society has built itself in a certain way, and as a people we have just finally reached a plateau on which all people can be judged by merit and deed rather than physical characteristics.
Unfortunately, in the arena where that very idea should be most deeply ingrained, since face-to-face contact is for suits, the other shoe has yet to drop. There is less social stigma now for a man to become an elementary school teacher than there is for a woman to go into a high-tech field. This matter has only really come to the mainstream media in the last few years; it's not like our educational system has taken the long hard look at itself and said 'yeah, our teachers don't give equal face time and attention to boys and girls'. The system is still trying to figure out what it all means...
Someone made the comment that most elementary school teachers are women. THERIN LIES A HUGE STUMBLING BLOCK. Women who are old enough to be teachers now and for the past decade are still from a generation where women were caregivers first, members of the workforce second. They are passing their ideals onto the children they teach; it's easy enough to do - boys should be rewarded for being agressive so they can be breadwinners, girls should be rewarded for being thoughtful and respectful.
So, at least in the US, almost everyone here now is a product of that dogma. There are a few, like Dr. Borg, who have been freed from societal contraints and set free to go on their own. Most others are still clinging to the idea that women are meant to do certain tasks, and encouraging them to be mathematicians or computer programmers would be counter to the 'nature' of being born female.
Before we get any improvement, that sentiment has to move more toward "PEOPLE are meant to become members of society, in fields they have an individual APPTITUDE for, REGARDLESS of their GENDER, race, or age (etc), and should be given ample opportunity to explore fields without suffering societal punishments."
We have a way to go. We probably have about 20 years to flush out the old biddies in the educational system, at least.
--mandi
no tax on my 2 cents
The reason why there are so few women in technology is because girls aren't encouraged to do many technical things from a young age on. Although this is a stereotype, it is still very true. There needs to be more encouragement from an early age on, or else they will never (or rarely) get into technological jobs later on in life. There was an excellent article on freshmeat about this very thing a while back.
Um, if she's interested in chemistry, she's already taken the bait and is entering a scientific(if not technical) field...
So she's actually not that great a counterexample, except in the specific field of computers, for example.
The general meme is that women are discouraged from science and technology; your friend, if she wants to go into chemistry, is not one of these women...
And it's difficult to base our perception of potential on a set of the population that has already determined, through past actions, their future potential. Can you say, boldly, that a large percentage of women 5 years from now won't be talented in that way, because of your personal experience with the people you knew who made their decisions 5 years ago?
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
A friend commented that there seems to be a decline in the number of male elementary school teachers... no one seems to concerned about that. What's the difference here?
This is stupid why should we fund people just because they are female and interested in computers? If they are interested treat them like the rest rather than a treating the rest of people (the majority) like a subclass. Women have been granted equal rights why should they be granted extra rights and privilages? I don't see how any of this would be fair or equal. The interviewee also tries to fight against generalizations of women while she generalizes about agressive male computer users. This is stupid. If someone was poor and interested maybe giving them some money to help them towards some goal would provide some form of equality but by providing incentives for women you are not equalizing. This was pretty disorganised since I was on a time limit I must go so think about it. Equality means equality for everyone!
Heh heh.
Yeah right. Get one to talk to you first, *then* tell me how their minds work.
Of course, if I were you, I'd resent women too.
I'm so tired of dereferencing my own pointer.
As a senior in CS, I think she's right on. There are a lot of very subtle factors that contribute to women not getting into CS, as well as other engineering fields. The absence of females in the CS program at any major university is really quite striking. I know a couple of femal CS friends of mine have told me that many people were shocked when they said they wanted to major in an engineering field. "Engineering, oh, that's hard." The sad thing is that most of these comments came from women.
Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back.
Citing the differences between the sexes is not a very good way to promote equality. Most women have life figured out, I wish these pundits would. Pushing women into high powered careers is a mistake.
Thomas Jefferson casually observed that savages put their women to the plow. How true! "Women's Lib" has enslaved a whole generation. Sure, it's nice in an abstract sense that a woman can now persue anything she might please, but it has not worked that way. The increased supply of labor has simply decreased it's worth, and now it's difficult for people to support themselves with a single income. Choice has become force, and we are all worse off for it.
Let's look at some of the costs of shipping the wife off to work. Childbirth among decent people has been put off and greatly reduced. Children recieve less attention, neighbors do not know each other, people eat junk food, and no one has time for anything including church. Weekends and nights are reserved for chores that ordinarilly would be done durring the day. Hell, single people have a hard time just meeting! They might have the time, but nothing is going on...not even church. This list can go on and on, the world is a complicated place and changes often bring about unentended consequenses.
The only winner has been the tax base, Married People are taxed higher than single pleople! How cool it was to be renting a 2 bedroom apartment, driving a 30 year old car but taxed at 28%, like a Kendedy or something. But, I digress with more personal gripes.
OK, flame me up for the exceptions. Sure, my sister makes two to three thimes what her husband makes. Does he want to be Mr. Mom? No! Is my sister happy slaving away in the persuit of other peoples proffit? I'm not sure. But it comes down to that difference that Borg was good enough to point out. Civilized people recognize such differences and specialization. Ignoring such things is folly.
Most women figure out that the best thing for them to do is get married and raise kids. Who wants to grow old childless? Raising children is not exactly a low energy solution, and it's the most important thing society does. The responsiblilities of parenting conflict in a major way with "real" carrers. It's nice that women who fail to marry and concieve or adopt have the ability to support themselves in the career of their choice. Who's supprised that most women's first choice of career affects their choice of fallbacks? Why study rocket science, medicine, law or some other all consuming proffesion when something much fluffier will pay the bills? Who is supprised to learn that women who do not have to work for others might not? Oh, well people will learn.
In every industry where one person was capable of supporting the needs of two, throughout all history, the women have dropped out and the men have been expected to win the bread. It's mathematically undefeatable. No-one knows why. It's just a law of nature we have to get used to.
The idea that there would be fewer job opportunities if women tackled the same roles as men is debatable. In fact there would be twice as many consumer expendatures than there are now since most women currently depend on men as a primary breadwinner.
The CS department at my school is currently hiring another faculty member. We are actually giving preference to female canidates to create a better gender balance amoung the professors. One of the reasons that we'd like to have a female professor is to try and attract more female students. We would love it if more females were interested in CS and they would be very welcome.
I wonder if there is a difference in attitudes between academia and industry... You tend to find that tolerance rises with the level of education and all of the professors have doctorates vs. 2 or 4 year degrees in a lot of programming jobs.
to your first point: my mother is an elementary school teacher. I volunteered at her site all through jr/sr highschool and into college doing computer type work, and was in the classroom every now and again - I always saw this. It wasn't just on the computers. One day after I was in her room for a while I asked her about one particular incident, and asked "well, when you make the groups that go to computer time, why don't you put all girls or all boys in a group, except maybe the girls like Jane (made up) that don't seem to have any problem defending themselves and will actually push back to get their share?" Her response was basically "don't suggest that while on school grounds... you'll get us sued."
a friend of mine in uni was an elementary ed major and summed it up best over supper in the caf one night after his first phase of student teaching: "yeah, little girls can be pr***y bi****s every now and again, but little boys tend to be ba*****s day in and day out."
your second point: you're right on the money... I had to go back and re-read that line a few times to make sure I understood what she was saying, then passed it off as bs and moved on.
we need more honeys in CS! first post?
smoke any good crack lately? shoot up recently?
drive by on s. college? u.d. is a lameass school, no matter what they say about being more selective. people go there to learn how to read, for chrissakes.
Once again it needs pointed out that this statistic is COMPLETELY BOGUS. The number of MALES receiving bachelor degrees in computer science is decreasing as well.
Why? because men are mentally inferior? Because we need to "show that we care" like the lady begs in the article? No. It's because computer science is the most complicated profession in the history of mankind (you name a more complicated invention than a piece of software that manipulates billions of microscopic switches billions of times per second). Colleges are closing down their departments of computer science (Marshall University closed theirs a couple years ago because no one was graduating). Entry classes into computer science is schrinking, the number getting past year 1 is shrinking even faster.
For one reason. It takes passion. You can be a doctor without passion.. maybe not a good one, but if you screw up a stich by a tenth of an inch, the patient doesn't die, no one even notices. You miss a semicolon or a comma, your software just does not work. It takes an obsessive passion to get into computers and not many people have that.
Another reason is the huge technology job boom where there are too many jobs for too many people (and this will not reverse for a long time because of the passion issue). Why get a degree when you can get hired without one, get every type of job benefit you can imagine, etc? I'm getting a degree because I just might go on to become a professor so I can work in theory stuff, but i don't see the point of anyone else doing it.
Esperandi
-
I NEVER said anything about "debugging".
Re-read what I've written.
Someone else started this crazy argument.
DEBUGGING is BTW something WOMEN can do BETTER,
because they see the details I, as a man, overlook.
I completely agree with you on your debugging-story, but that's offtopic.
I never used that word.
later, george./
Except for one stunningly gorgeous girl in my Operating Systems class, I know of very few women in CS or any other tech major. Of course there are a few lurking about here and there, but by and large they're kind of...strange. Most of the girls here tend to hang out either at the gym or the art building, as far as I can tell. Personally I'll never understand why girls seem disinterested when I start talking about Quake, PHP, C++, 3D modeling, etc. This is all complex and fascinating stuff. What else could possibly be as comparitively interesting?
-W.W.
"Well it should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual who holds an advanced degree in hyperbolic topology...
women know how to use computers?
In which case, perhaps it can be stated that there's a cultural imperative preventing thewe girls from doing the full leap from M&S to CS?
I mean, if they are talented enough and interested enough in M&S, it's not skill or ability that keeps them out of CS!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I guess they've never seen Linus Torvalds naked and petrified!
WOOHOO!!!FIRST POST BE-ATCHES!!!
go me!
This could not possibly be a first post, and yet I see no other comments! This story was posted what, two hours ago? Is it just me, or has slashdot in general been behaving very poorly as of late?
Borg, hahahah!
>Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back.
I remember reading something about that. I believe some teacher was watching her third grade students and saw this.
This would be a good reason why there aren't many girls in the 3rd grade who are using computers. That's about it.
Because the computer field is constantly changing and mentally intensive, you have to LIKE computers just to stay competent. Reading about current issues, trying new tech, bugging someone who knows more than you do. If you love computers you'll do even better.
ErikZ
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Why don't we pitch in to get CdmrTaco a sex change operation?
I'm not disagreeing with all of the last post... just a minor correction. The parts of Einstein's brain that deal with spatial and mathematical thinking were nearly 20% larger than average.
It's true that the overall size of his brain was smaller than average. However I'm not so impressed by some of his other brain functions. Not being able to tie his own shoes, or not noticing where he is until he's already taken 4 steps into a lake don't speak well for the rest of his brain(which was much smaller than normal).
I'm a gnu world man.
Our school has a Women in Mathematics Committee that deals with this sort of thing. Their stats show that females make up about 20 percent of the math faculty, and that percentage has declined in recent years.
Someone from CMU posted that they have a special intro course for non-computer people. We have one of those too. It's a joke. You learn FileMaker, Word, Excel, and Turing (ever programmed in that?). And yes, the class has a lot of females in it. (An aside: not everyone in there is a CS major; they're all math majors though.)
On the issue of minorities, that's really a non-issue at UW. I'd say the class is an even mixture of white and asian students, with a good number of Indian (from India, not Native American) students as well.
A bunch of friends and I were mulling over the latest recruitment brochure sometime last year. (It's much prettier than the one I got.) We noticed the photographs featured a disproportionately high number of white females, especially in programs where they aren't well represented, like CS. So what's up with that? False advertising? (By contrast, a friend of mine who worked on the brochures at Western said they were told to find as many minorities as possible.)
A percentage of WHAT? She doesn't say. She didn't say as a percentage of the total computer science body graduating with bachelors, notice. She could be talking about a smaller percentage of women students going to college in ANY subject are graduating from computer science programs. She could be talking about a decrease in the percentage of women graduating in computer science in relation to the number of women entering into computer science programs... she could be talking about a decrease in the percentage of women graduating from computer science programs in terms of the percentage of the entire student body going into computer science... statistics are very tricky and unless the giver gives enough information so you *KNOW* what they're talking about and in relation to what, ignore them. There's a reason they didn't' spell it out.
Esperandi
Solutions? What's the problem? :-)
I'll start cross-dressing when I go to class.
Why make a big fuss about half of this? A big part of being in a technical industry like it is anti everything that normal people know. Somehow I think some of this is just this lady saying "look this is why women aren't in computers" when some of this applies equaly to everyone. Mind you there is obviously a lack of girls in computing. Perhaps women see it as an anti-social field. I don't know. Myself I think it would be cool to work with some women. I know I get sick and tired of "the guys" once in a while.
"Equality, not Androgyny" is the best equal-rights slogan I have come across. Men and women should be equal, but it doesn't mean they should be exactly the same.
I agree that if girls show interest in engineering pursuits at an early age they should be encouraged. This is important, and really hasn't been successful in the past. Females should _not_ be "moulded" into aggressive engineer types, in the same way the _no one_ should.
-Jasa
-Jasa -- Linux - The SOURCE will be with you, ALWAYS
I recently finished a CS degree, and my class was definitely male dominated. I had many discussions with some of my classmates about sexism, and I was shocked to find that most of them thought sexism didn't exist any more. While most of the people I was friends with didn't discriminate on the basis of my gender, it did still happen. I also had to listen to a lot of well-meant but offensive jokes, such as references to my grades being due to sexual favors provided to professors.
I think that things are changing for the better, but both men and women have a lot of work to do. Maybe there's a certain amount of truth to there being a real difference between men and women, but I don't think it's as great as what the enrollment statistics show. It would probably help a lot if women felt more comfortable in the industry. To my mind, one of the first things that needs to happen is that men have to think sometimes before making sexual remarks, and women need to start telling men when they're crossed the line.
I don't think affirmative action programs are the way to go. They may have helped women get their foot in the door, but they're really just reverse discrimination. They had their time, but it's past now. Using them will just cause a backlash.
I NEVER said anything about "debugging".
Re-read what I've written.
I don't have to re-read it; I believe you. You were speaking only about programming in general. Debugging is, however, part of programming, and it's an important skill. I'd give a lot to be better at it.
I completely agree with you on your debugging-story, but that's offtopic. I never used that word.
I don't personally see debugging as being very far off-topic in a discussion of programming.
All I said was that you said something along the lines of "think about it", and I did, and that's what came out. I'm not seeing an argument here at all.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Hmmm... plain old text stripped out the all the '<' and '>' characters after the >>
What is the accepted way of indicating that a block of text has been quoted from the comment that I am responding to? The way it is done in email (ie with levels of '>' before each line) doesn't work in this context since the line can be resized.
All I have is my own personal experience, which may not be representative;
Caltech. 1:3 ratio of women to men, in science in technology.
1:30 ratio of women to men, in CS
1:10 ration of women to men, in EE
So there is some selective pressure at Caltech at least, and at Caltech people are trying to do something about it.
I interpreted this interview's comments in this light. I don't know what it is like for the rest of the Universities; do you have statistics? I know in my workplace, it's a 1:13 ratio of women to men, and this is HP in the bay area.
And I don't understand why making the environment easier won't work in computer science. CS doesn't particularly seem like a flopping fish, to me.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back.
Oooo, I can just feel the understanding oozing out of every orifice of the interview. You can find half the solution by looking in the mirror.
Regardless of whether or not you think women and men are different because of nature or nurture, shallow generalizations do not help. I guess its too much to ask for humanity to learn from mistakes?
REALITY
My experience was different from that. When I took AP comp sci my sophomore year in high school, the gender ratio of the class was almost 50/50. Junior year, I took classes in assembly language and graphics. These classes were for people who had completed AP. Unlike AP, they had a lot more males than females. Later, I was involved in our Computer Science Team (which was involved in competitions like the USACO) and found it to be almost entirely male. Finally, I was part of the "Z-Team" who was in charge of administering the school network; that group was entirely male. It seemed pretty clear that the higher up you went, the less females there were. There were plenty of girls and guys who wanted to learn some simple programming, none of the girls ended up pursuing it very far while some of the guys did.I assume then that very few of these girls went on to major in CS at college (which I'm doing). There are definitely less females in the computer science classes here percentage-wise than in AP in high school.
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
You don't think men are any good at those things?
About cooking: Men have to eat too, and are a better judge of men's taste than any woman ever will be!
About sucking cock: Men have cocks, and can fundamentally understand them in ways women will never grasp.
:P
If they are, I'm beginning to suspect that the fact that these people even exist, even in the small proportion that they (hopefully) represent in the general population, may well have something to do with the very problem we're discussing. As Dr. Borg points out, outright sexism is on the decline. But it's clearly not gone. And the fact that we still are seeing outright sexism tends to support the thesis that there's still a considerable amount of subtle and latent sexism in the society still.
I guess the main problem I had with the Dr. Borg interview is the complaint about being inadequately funded. The "Give us more money!" card always raises suspicions in my mind when it's played. Also, the article's awfully short on suggestions as to what we, the individual CS geeks of the world, can do about it -- those of us who really would like to see more women in the field (and NOT just so we can get a date!)
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I can't imagine why more skirts don't wanna enter CS?
Fine. Men and women are different. Fine, statistically it didn't interest them.
:P
Why does this make any difference over the fact that I, and other people, want more women in the field?
Just on a purely selfish goal, a building with women in it smell better than if there are only men. Maybe it's that perfume smells better than cologne. Or that there are pheremones involved. Or that my preference is towards women.
Another goal, then, would to have more women around. I just enjoy the company more, no matter how nice a guy is. Again, it could be any of the above reasons(smell better, pheremones, or hormones).
There aren't enough technical workers. Women are an untapped field. Solution, perhaps? It could concievable double the number of technical workers!
So there
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
4Z 4 c171z3n 0f 7H1Z c0un7Ry, wH1cH 1 b3L13v3 1n 4nd wH1cH 1 H4v3 Z33n MR. R0b M4Ld4 734R 4p4R7, 1 muZ7 74k3 4 Z7R0nG p0Z1710n 0n R0b'Z 3ffuZ10nZ, wH1cH,
4f73R 4LL, f0Z73R c4nn1b4L1Zm 47 3v3Ry 0pp0R7un17y. L37 uZ n073 f1RZ7 0f 4LL 7H47 R0b'Z c0nj3c7uR3Z 4R3 d3Z1Gn3d 70 1nZ71LL 4 Zubc0nZc10uZ f33L1nG 0f Gu1L7 1n
7H0Z3 0f uZ wH0 d1Z4GR33 w17H R0b'Z 1n71m4710nZ. 4nd 7H3y'R3 w0Rk1nG; 7H3y'R3 H4v1nG 7H3 d3Z1R3d 3ff3c7. H1Z pR1nc1pL3Z, wH1L3 1d30L0G1c4LLy GR0und3d 1n 4
RH370R1c 4nd pR4c71c3 0f 3L171Zm, 4R3 ZuRR0und3d by 4 cL04k 0f Z3cR3cy 4nd "pL4uZ1bL3 d3n14L". SuR3, 17 Z0undZ L4zy. BL4m3 7H47 0n Z3Lf-R1GH730uZ
m1Z0Gyn1Z7Z. W1LL GRumpy m4n1puL470RZ 0f 7H3 pubL1c m1nd 3v3R 74k3 4c710n? D0n'7 b37 0n 17.
L37'Z und3RZ74nd 0n3 fund4m3n74L f4c7: 1 H4v3 n0 1d34 wHy R0b M4Ld4 w4nn4b33Z H4v3 ZpR0u73d 4cR0ZZ 7H3 c0un7Ry L1k3 muZHR00mZ 4f73R 4 d0wnp0uR.
7H3 k3y p01n7 H3R3 1Z 7H47 H3 cL41mZ 7H47 Zp4c3 4L13nZ 4R3 0u7 70 L4y 3GGZ 1n 0uR 1nn4RdZ 0R 00z3 7H31R 4L13n H3LL-ZL1m3 4LL 0v3R uZ. W3LL, 1 b3G 70 d1ff3R.
7H0Z3 0f uZ wH0 4R3 700 L4zy 0R d1Z1n73R3Z73d 70 1nv3Z71G473 R0b'Z b3Z0773d pR1nc1pL3Z, 1d34LZ, 4nd 0bj3c71v3Z H4v3 n0 R1GH7 70 c0mpL41n wH3n H3 4nd H1Z
cR0n13Z pu7 m4L1c10uZ 7H0uGH7Z 1n 0uR cH1LdR3n'Z m1ndZ. Y37 7H3R3'Z mucH m0R3 70 17 7H4n 7H47. 1 R34L1z3 7H47 f4v0R171Zm 1Z 4 7R3m3nd0uZ pR0bL3m 1n 0uR
Z0c137y, bu7 d03Z 17 c0nZ74n7Ly H4v3 70 b3 7HR0wn 1n 0uR f4c3Z? O7H3R Zp1n3L3ZZ Zc4Ry-7yp3Z 4R3 4LZ0 c0nZum3d w17H 4 d3Z1R3 70 d3fy 7H3 L4w 0f 7H3 L4nd.
R0b 1Z b4d 3n0uGH wH3n H3'Z 4L0n3, bu7 H3 1Z 3v3n w0RZ3 wH3n H3'Z j01n3d by m00nZ7Ruck dw33bZ. H1Z m0R4LZ 4R3 b4Z3d 0n 4 d3n14L 0f R34L17y, 0n 7H3
ZubZ717u710n 0f 4 d3L1b3R473Ly f4LZ1f13d p1c7uR3 0f 7H3 w0RLd 1n pL4c3 0f R34L17y. 4nd 7H1Z d1ZH0n3Z7y, 7H1Z R3fuZ4L 70 4dm17 7H3 7Ru7H, w1LL H4v3 Z0m3 v3Ry Z3R10uZ
c0nZ3qu3nc3Z f0R 4LL 0f uZ by 7H3 n3x7 fuLL m00n. 17'Z n07 juZ7 7H47 17 m4y Z33m 3xc3ZZ1v3 70 n073 7H47 17'Z ZH0ck1nG juZ7 H0w ZpL3n371c R0b c4n b3, bu7 4LZ0
7H47 7H3R3 4R3 7w0 R3L473d qu3Z710nZ 1n 7H1Z m4773R. 7H3 f1RZ7 1Z 70 wH47 3x73n7 H3 H4Z 7R13d 70 d3Zc3nd 70 cH4R4c73R 4ZZ4ZZ1n4710n 4nd n4m3 c4LL1nG. 7H3
07H3R 1Z wH37H3R 0R n07 R0b n33dZ 70 c0m3 70 73RmZ w17H H1Z GRu3Z0m3 p4Z7.
WH1L3 H3 m1GH7 n07 m4k3 my bL00d cuRdL3 p3R Z3, 1 4m 4pp4LL3d by 7H3 v4Z7 G3n3R4L1z4710nZ 1n R0b'Z cL41m 7H47 G0v3Rnm3n7Z ZH0uLd H4v3 7H3 R1GH7 70 L13 70
7H31R 0wn Zubj3c7Z 0R 70 07H3R G0v3Rnm3n7Z. On 4 Z1m1L4R n073, R0b 1Z 4 f417HfuL Z7ud3n7 0f Sun 7zu, 7H3 4nc13n7 CH1n3Z3 Z7R473G1Z7 wH0 4dv0c473d
d3m0R4L1z1nG 0n3'Z 3n3my 4Z 7H3 H1GH3Z7 4R7 0f w4Rf4R3. 4L7H0uGH 1 4GR33 w17H 7H0Z3 wH0 m41n741n 7H47 7H3 7H0uGH7 7H47 Z0m30n3, Z0m3wH3R3, m1GH7
Z34RcH f0R Z0Lu710nZ 7H47 4R3 m0R3 cR3471v3 4nd c0nZ7Ruc71v3 7H4n 7H3 7yp1c4LLy mudZL1nG1nG 0n3Z cH4mp10n3d by 7H3 w0RZ7 Z0R7Z 0f pR1m171v3 unc0n7R0LL4bL3
junk13Z 7H3R3 4R3 1Z 4n47H3m4 70 R0b, n3v3R7H3L3ZZ, 1 c4nn07 4GR33 w17H 7H3 Zubj3c7 m4773R 4nd 47717ud3 7H47 1Z w0v3n 1n70 3v3Ry 0n3 0f R0b'Z v17R10L1c cR4f7y
bL4nk37 Z7473m3n7Z.
17 d03Zn'7 74k3 4 G3n1uZ 70 f1GuR3 0u7 7H47 H3 H4Z 4 n47uR4L 74L3n7 f0R c0mpL41n1nG. H3 c4n f1nd 4ny 4Zp3c7 0f L1f3 4nd wH1n3 4b0u7 17 f0R H0uRZ up0n H0uRZ.
1nc1d3n74LLy, 7H3 m0R4L d3v4Z74710nZ 7H47 4cc0mp4ny H1Z 1nc0H3R3n7 m4L0d0R0uZ 4nn0unc3m3n7Z Zuff1c3 70 ZL0wLy bu7 ZuR3Ly 70ZZ qu41n7 c0nc3p7Z L1k3
d3c3ncy, f41Rn3ZZ, 4nd R4710n4L d3b473 0u7 7H3 w1nd0w. F33L1nGZ 0f 1nf3R10R17y 4R3 cH4R4c73R1Z71c 0f d3m3n73d d3v10uZ-7yp3Z. R0b 1Z 4Lm0Z7 un1qu3 4m0nG
f0uL pR4c71710n3RZ 0f Z0L1pZ1Zm 1n 7H47 H3 0p3nLy 3Zp0uZ3Z 4 d1ZRup71v3 v13w 0f R34L17y 4nd 4 d3f3nZ3 0f d3R4nG3d pL4G14R1Zm. B3c4uZ3 0f H1Z 34G3Rn3ZZ 70
p4R71c1p473 1n R107Z, 7H3R3 1Z n0 qu3Z710n 7H47 17 w0uLd b3 1mp0ZZ1bL3, 3v3n b37w33n 7H3 c0v3RZ 0f 4 7H0uZ4nd v0Lum3Z, 70 L1Z7 4nd d3ZcR1b3 4LL 0f 7H3
pR0fL1G473 7H1nGZ 7H47 R0b H4Z d0n3. WHy d03Z H3 w4n7 70 1nc173 4n 47m0ZpH3R3 0f v10L3nc3 4nd 3nd4nG3Rm3n7 70w4Rd 7H3 G00d m3n, w0m3n, 4nd
cH1LdR3n 0f 7H1Z Z7473? PZycH0L0G1Z7Z m1GH7 ZuGG3Z7 7H47 1 4m n07 c0n73n7 70 w47cH my L1b3R713Z ZL1p 4w4y 3v3n 4Z 1 wR173 7H1Z L3773R. C0unZ3L0RZ m1GH7
1nZ1Z7 7H47 4Z1d3 fR0m 4 f3w 3xc3p710nZ, 7H1Z Z7473m3n7 1Z unm1Z74k34bLy v4L1d. S0c10L0G1Z7Z m1GH7 p01n7 0u7 7H47 4LL 0f H1Z c0mm3n7Z ZH4R3 3L3m3n7Z 0f
7R4d1710n4L, vuLG4R c0nZp1R4cy 7H3m3Z 1n wH1cH 0u7-0f-70ucH knuckL3H34dZ Z3cR37Ly 0bfuZc473 7H3 1ZZu3 Z0 7H47 0n3 c4n'7 Z33 wH47 0uGH7 70 b3 3n71R3Ly
0bv10uZ 70 4LL. 1 4GR33 w17H 7H3 4b0v3 4ZZ3ZZm3n7Z, bu7 1f 1 w4n7 70 k1ZZ my fR33d0m G00dby3, 7H47 ZH0uLd b3 my pR3R0G471v3. 1 d0n'7 n33d R0b f0Rc1nG m3
70.
O7H3RZ H4v3 Z7473d 17 mucH m0R3 3L0qu3n7Ly 7H4n 1, bu7 m0Z7 p30pL3 4R3 Z71LL L047H 70 4dm17 7H47 H3 b4Z3Z H1Z uL71m474 0n 7H3 b3L13f 7H47 7H0Z3 0f uZ wH0
0pp0Z3 H1m w0uLd R47H3R Run 7H4n f1GH7. 7H1Z 1Z 4 7Ru7H 7H47 R0b'Z L4ck3yZ 4R3 70Ld by R0b 7H47 7H3y c4nn07 4ckn0wL3dG3, L3Z7 7H3y G1v3 41d 4nd c0mf0R7 70
7H3 R3Z7 0f uZ. 1 cH4LL3nG3 H1m 70 cR4wL 0u7 0f H1Z ZH3L73R3d 3x1Z73nc3 4nd f0Z73R mu7u4L und3RZ74nd1nG. W17H 7H1Z c3n7R4L p01n7 cL34R3d up, 7H3 R3Z7 0f R0b'Z
4RGum3n7Z 4R3 R3nd3R3d m007, 4Z H3 b3L13v3Z 7H47 3v3Ry f347H3RL3ZZ b1p3d, R3G4RdL3ZZ 0f 1n73LL1G3nc3, p3RZ0n4L 4cH13v3m3n7, m0R4L cH4R4c73R, Z3nZ3 0f
R3Zp0nZ1b1L17y, 0R Z4n17y, ZH0uLd b3 G1v3n 7H3 p0w3R 70 L3v3L f1L7H 4nd ZL1m3 47 3v3Ry0n3 0pp0Z3d 70 H1Z w1771c1ZmZ. S0RRy, bu7 1 H4v3 70 c4LL f0uL 0n 7H47 0n3.
L3Z7 1 f0RG37 70 m3n710n 7H1Z L473R, 1'm b3w1Ld3R3d by 7H3 fL1pp4n7 n47uR3 0f R0b'Z j3R3m14dZ. Y0u m4y b3 ZuRpR1Z3d 70 L34Rn 7H47 1 w4Z 0nc3 L1k3 R0b. 1, 700,
w4n73d 70 4bR1dG3 0uR b4Z1c c1v1L L1b3R713Z. 17 1n73Rf3R3d w17H my judG3m3n7, my R34Z0n1nG, 4nd my 4b1L17y 70 Z71ck 70 7H3 f4c7Z 4nd 0ff3R 0nLy 7H0Z3
4RGum3n7Z 7H47 c4n b3 Zupp0R73d by 7H0Z3 f4c7Z.
W3 c4n Z4y 7H47 1 f1nd H1Z und3R74k1nGZ Zymp70m471c 0f 4 d4nG3R0uZ bu7 ZpR34d1nG m3n74L17y, 4nd H3 c4n cL41m 7H3 0pp0Z173, 4nd 17 w0n'7 m4k3 0n3 b17 0f
d1ff3R3nc3. 1n 07H3R w0RdZ, 4cc0Rd1nG 70 7H3 d1c710n4Ry, "R0b-1Zm" 1Z "4ny 0f 4 Z37 0f pubL1c17y Z7un7Z 7H47 d0 7H3 3n71R3 c0un7Ry 4 GR4v3 d1ZZ3Rv1c3". H3
m41n741nZ 7H47 H3 H0LdZ 4 un1v3RZ4L L1c3nZ3 7H47 4LL0wZ H1m 70 c4LL 3v1L G00d 4nd G00d 3v1L. P3RH4pZ 17 w0uLd b3 b3Z7 f0R H1m 70 4w4k3n fR0m H1Z
d3LuZ10n4L n4Rc0L3p71c f4n74ZyL4nd 4nd 0bZ3Rv3 7H47 1 0pp0Z3 H1Z 4c710nZ b3c4uZ3 7H3y 4R3 Z3Lf-p17y1nG. 1 0pp0Z3 7H3m b3c4uZ3 7H3y 4R3 Zup3Rc1L10uZ.
4nd 1 0pp0Z3 7H3m b3c4uZ3 7H3y w1LL c0nd0n3 1LL3G4L 4c71v1713Z 0n3 d4y.
7H3 Z4m3 p01Z0n0uZ Zp1R17 7H47 1nf3c7Z 7H3 w0RZ7 k1ndZ 0f y3LL0w-b3LL13d b1G-L4b0R b0ZZ3Z 7H3R3 4R3 4LZ0 p0LLu73Z R0b'Z 7H1nk1nG. 1 w1ZH 1 c0uLd pu7 17 m0R3
d3L1c473Ly, bu7 7H47 w0uLd m1ZZ 7H3 p01n7. 7H1Z 1Z cL34R 70 3v3Ry kn0wL3dG34bL3 0bZ3Rv3R. 70 Z4y 07H3Rw1Z3 w0uLd b3 0Rn3Ry. N0w, wHy 4LL 7H1Z fuZZ 4b0u7 4
f3w dupL1c170uZ Z3Lf-fuLf1LL1nG pR0pH3c13Z? S1mpLy pu7, 17'Z b3c4uZ3 R0b'Z 4ZZump710nZ 4R3 m47cH3d 1n 7H31R un73n4b1L17y 0nLy by 7H3 4RR0G4n7 f3Rv0R w17H
wH1cH 7H3y 4R3 H3Ld. 7H3R3 H4v3 b33n R3p0R7Z 0f R4mp4n7 dRunk3nn3ZZ, p3Rf0Rm4nc3Z by Z7R1pp3RZ, pubL1c nud17y, 4nd 07H3R L1c3n710uZ 4nd 1n7RuZ1v3
b3H4v10R 47 3v3Ry G47H3R1nG 0f R0b'Z H3ncHm3n. 3v3n m0R3 R3m4Rk4bL3, c0nc3173d cL0Z3d-m1nd3d Zc0undR3LZ Z1mpLy p4ZZ 7HR0uGH 7H1Z w0RLd Z0w1nG 7H3
Z33dZ 0f 3v1L.
WHy R0b w0uLd 3v3n pR373nd 7H47 w3 H4v3 n0 R34Z0n 70 b3 f34RfuL 4b0u7 7H3 cR1m1n4LLy v10L3n7 7R3ndZ 1n 0uR Z0c137y 70d4y 4nd 0v3R 7H3 p4Z7 73n 70 f1f733n
y34RZ 1Z b3y0nd m3. H3 H4Z b33n kn0wn 70 Z4y 7H47 Zk1n c0L0R m34nZ m0R3 7H4n Zk1LL 4nd G3nd3R 1Z m0R3 1mpR3ZZ1v3 7H4n G3n1uZ. 7H47 n0710n 1Z Z0
m3ddL3Z0m3, 1 H4RdLy kn0w wH3R3 70 b3G1n R3fu71nG 17. P3RH4pZ "p13z0cRyZ74LL1z4710n" 1Z Z0m371m3Z n4RR0wLy d3f1n3d by 1mp3R71n3n7 b0uRG301Z13, bu7
R3m3mb3R 7H47 L1f3 1Z 700 ZH0R7 70 H4v3 70 pu7 up w17H Z7ubb0Rn d3L1nqu3n7Z. MR. R0b M4Ld4 1Z -- f0R L4ck 0f 4 b3773R w0Rd -- un1nf0Rm3d. 4nd 7H47'Z 4LL 1 H4v3
70 Z4y.
{Shameless_Parody}
Proposals may be submitted for the forthcoming IEEE 7893 "Female/Society Society/Female Interaction Protocol (SF/IP) 5.0" standard. While this model, like the entire IEEE 23234 "Homo Sapiens" class hgas gone through many revisions, it is rightly felt that a new societal protocal is needed to ensure fairness and equality.
Issues to be addressed are: Backwards compatibility with conservative backwaters (no offense, I hope! ;-), non-cooperation with high level protocals like GC/IP (Glass Ceiling) and low level ones such as CB/IP (Classroom Bias). An important issue is network interactions with TS (Testosterone Superfluos) encoded packets.
Current suggestions are to use a flexible "Reproggramable Node" concept (Note: the idea of programmable nodes is actually under development), based around FS/IP (Family Support/Interaction Protocol).
Questions include the scope of this progect, and its stance in relation to FibreOptic technologies, cloning and spontaneous extinction of the human race.
{/Shameless_Parody}
________________________________
He who fights and runs away,
"Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back. " Give me a fucking break! When Anita was sucking my dick she was pretty aggressive and even wanted to do some BDSM. I told the bitch her Perl code looked like shit and she needed to leave my house. Peace out!
I agree with you. My high school supposedly had two CS classes - a regular programming class (in Pascal! ouch!), and an "AP" class, which was really just the regular programming class, only you got special permission to do "projects" like work on the school's web page . . .
The goal here is not "equal representation" - just as no one expects 50/50 representation in Elementary Education, no one expects in CS or EE. But the goal is "equal opportunity". I would have loved to have someone who could have taught me a whole lot more than I knew about computers - as it was, everything I learned was from old DR DOS manuals and free computer magazines. I look at all the computer people I admire, who really know a lot (like my husband), and many times the reason they know so much is that they had computers around, they had mentors to explain things to them, or they had the ability to just fool around.
When I was younger, the computer was "dad's territory". I wasn't able to take it apart, or write funky programs that could possibly mess up the computer. I didn't feel like there was an area where I could experiment.
Another result of the fact that much computer knowledge (especially in the earlier years) is learned from friends, is that young girls usually have mostly female friends. Because their friends don't have computer interests, they may turn to other things. This isn't necessarily bad; but it is a factor leading to these statistics.
I believe that parents and teachers have the most responsibility to see that children have equal opportunities to get involved in computer fields. While this may not alter the current ratio dramatically, at least those females who do want to get involved will feel comfortable doing so.
-- Qirien, Academy of Defenestration
-- Qirien, Academy of Defenestration
"Who do you want to defenestrate today?"
i wanted to go to CMU BAD when i was looking for a place to go. I'd transfer tomorrow if they invited me, i hope to go there for graduate work if I decide to do that... the thing about CMU is that they get 5000+ applications for the college of computer science every semester and they have under 300 spots available... that's what i was told when i wanted to go there... didn't even try because its expensive as all hell and also because my high school grades were pretty nasty so scholarships were a bust, they didn't offer any merit-based scholarships. Well, I'm going to an expensive private college now thanks to a merit-bsed scholarship. I took a computer science-oriented test which dealt with writing pseudocode, formulating algorithms, etc, and aced it. Every college should have such a thing. Having 1 computer class in high school that I got to sit out because i wrote a program to calculate and save glaze formulas for the pottery class and the pottery teacher taught the computer programming class doesn't make my grades in high school reflect the fact that I'm balls-to-the-walls in love with computers and programming!
;)
Esperandi
forgive the rant at the end, it still bugs me
Why are there so few blacks or hispanics in computer science? Is it genetic, cultural, or what?
As is generally accepted, women are raised as social beings, men are raised as solo, physical object related beings.
Girls are given dolls, ponies, social toys. Boys are given cars, guns, shovels, non-interactive toys.
You then have a profession, that requires many, many hours of solitary work dealing with a mechanical object.
Not only that, but I think everyone would agree that it tends to attract the least social of the unsocial gender.
It has nothing to do with ability or dedication, but they don't want to do something boring.
Someone do a survey. I would guess that it is simply that it is not as attractive to them as other positions. CS needs to be presented to women as more than a lot of money. It has to be enjoyable.
- I like pudding.
Prior experience in computer science is not and has never been an entrance requiement at CMU SCS. It may seem that way because it has gotten increasingly competitive over the years and the incomming freshmen know more every year (and think they know even more than that - incuding the ability to jude the qualifications of their peers - without the benifit of any of the information in thier applications ;) But the intention has always been that a smart, creative person should be able to do well in the program - even if they weren't hacking 8086 in the womb. How do I know this? Because I've discussed this very topic with the undergraduate dean!
But ask yourself, honestly, if this percieved injustice doesn't affect your treatment of female classmates. As a woman who was admitted to CMU SCS on *excellent* qualifications, I had no time for those boys in my class who had snotty shitty attitudes for no good reason. However, some of the egos one encounters can be a blow to the self-esteem, and it can take some time and support to realize that it's all just hot air.
Sorry if this is a bit harsh, I'm in a hurry, no time to "nice it up"
- bridgette
ooh... w3m uses vi as it's comment editor.
spiffy.
Now I know this might be judged offtopic, but why do people feel the need to categorize and then attempt to speak for any classified group? That is, one that is not representative of any organization.
After all these are the same people that bitch and moan when their group is feeling mistreated or discriminated against. Now how are we going to treat people equally if we are constantly focused on their different needs based on class? It just doesn't add up.
It's interesting to know that there is a distinct lack of women engineers, but it doesn't mean that we have to work harder to "make" more women engineers. If we are doing our job right as civil respecting people less women are engineers because they DON'T WANT to be engineers. They should be doing what they want to do.
I am a male engineering student and single parent. Up until this semester I have been unable to use my states aid program for student parents. Often women from 2 income homes in my courses were having there childcare and tuition paid by the state. While I qualified for no benefits. Yet my classes remain 90% male. There are programs in place to address this "problem" and often they go to far. Often they cross the boundry into reverse discrimination. Women are a minority of the engineering majors because the majority of women are not interested in engineering
already done. Castrated by Andover.
Being a 3rd year cs major at binghamton University, I personally would love more females in class :) ...It's hard to get a date!...seriously it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think the "geek" image is not appealing to most women. We could use the differnt perspectives that women would bring. Just look at history Ada Lovelace,Grace hopper,..ect
Her entire argument seems centered around the 'fact' that boys are more agressive than girls, therefore they push them off the computers. Give me a break. She did stumble across some truth; boys ARE more aggressive than girls. Why? Because men and women are DIFFERENT. They THINK differently. They COMMUNICATE differently. They have different STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES. That does not make one better than another - only different. Stop trying to force square pegs in round holes. Alot of women have no interest in I.T. That does not make them bad women. Some women do have that interest - great! Alot of men have no interest in languages and the arts. Big deal. I see no articles devoted to the declining male enrollment in traditionally female courses... The long & short of it is to go with your strengths. IMO its nature, not nurture, that has the biggest effect on our preferences.
I mean, while it does sound like flamebait, there doesn't seem to be an actual barrier to women getting into computers. No one does the "go play with your dolls" thing anymore. Maybe its not a case of the right mindset, but simply a different one. Also, it could be that women aren't usually interested by computers?
BTW, whatever happened to that matrix crypto thing that was faster than RSA? Invented by that 15 year old girl?
I find it very reasonable for organizations to want the demographic of men-to-women engineers to be a bit more balanced. But Dr. Anita Borg does not bring any insight into this discussion. Her arguments are just as subjective as the argument that women aren't interested in engineering disciplines.
. programs for women are "too small and under-funded". I have yet to hear of any engineering program for boys. As far as I know IEEE, USENIX, SAGE, and other such groups are open to both sexes.
. "a great little book called Does Jane Compute?" shows how girls won't fight back against the wild and aggressive boys for computer time. Does this sound absurd to anybody else besides me?
Although this it is an interesting issue to comtemplate, Dr. Borg, despite being the pres. of the Institute for Women and Technology, doesn't seem to have a handle on this problem. nor does she give us any clues to its causes or solutions.
To this day I still have difficulty grasping the idea that other people choose their majors based on what other people in the major are like.
Now I'm wondering if men and women respond to peer pressure differently. Face it, engineering, and computer science in particular, are low status majors. They pay well, and the working conditions are unbelievably good (desk job, flexible hours), and they're a hell of a lot of fun. But they are low status.
And I think girls are more status-conscious than boys.
I hope I'm not breaking some unwritten rule by actually providing data, but here goes...
Based on the information in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 in NSF Report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (1998) covering the years 1967-1995, the percentage of bachelor's degrees in "mathematical/computer sciences" going to women peaked at 39.5% in 1985. In nine of the next ten years, the percentage of such degrees going to women decreased slightly, with 35.1% going to women in 1995.
Anybody have any data for outside of the U.S.?
In many research labs and beyond, the accepted model for deciding whether someone has a good idea is their ability to do battle and defend it. The way you play with an idea is to attack, attack, attack. And if the person is left standing at the end if it, then their idea must have been good. Now I think that's simply a bad filter.
Using one's willingness and ability to do intellectual battle to decide whether you're smart, or whether your idea is good is completely analogous. It works really well for people who like to fight and it tells you absolutely nothing about anybody else.
I'm not arguing any biological determinism, but women are socialized not to engage in battle. Now we all learn how. What it means is that anybody who didn't rise to learning how to fight, even if she didn't like it, even if it didn't feel natural may well just [opt out]. We're losing the brilliance and creativity of people who like to interact in a different way. We're missing a bunch of men, too.
I almost agreed with this article, until I came to this bit. Basically, what I read from this is that she doesn't like the idea of peer review. She doesn't like the idea that an idea is thrown out if it can't stand up to testing. Never mind that this is is the basis of all modern science (and most other academic pursuits), and with good reason. Basically, she's throwing out the whole idea that ideas should be accepted on merit. Even worse is that she has no suggestions for how to replace such a system. You can't very well get rid of one system until you have something to replace it, but she still advocates throwing out the basis of human knowledge anyway.
Of course, this may be because of this whole "battle" thing she's talking about. It's a load of crap, but it fits very with the "all men like to do is fight" stereotype. Either way, she misses the point of peer review entirely.
She also dismisses the argument about the number of women CS majors declining because women aren't as interested. The fact is, that one's obvious. The numbers speak for themselves; if more women were interested in CS, more would be applying. The point is that if we're going to do something about that, we need to find out why women aren't interested. That is the problem; the decline in women CS majors is merely a symptom thereof. If you want to fix a problem, first you have to figure out why the problem exists. So why does it exist? I don't claim to know. That's the problem; say all you want but no one really knows for sure. Otherwise we'd be well on our way to actually fixing the problem (no, I don't think we'd have it fixed yet; these sorts of things take at least a generation to really have an effect).
But I do know that we're not going to solve any problems by throwing away the peer review system. That would be outright suicidal for civilization as we know it. It's possible that I'm misinterpreting what she was saying, but it doesn't look that way.
The following is the full text of a letter I wrote to the Wired interviewer.
Dear Lakshmi Chaudhry -
Your recent interview with Dr. Borg is fascinating on a philosophical and sociological level; she makes several useful points about how the sexes are socialized and educated differently. The broad idea she tried to get across, that women deserve equal opportunities with technology, is right on the money. However, the interview is also quite misleading.
The first problem is with the age of Dr. Borg's data. A quick search of the Department of Education web page shows that the most recent data on the sexes' fields of study date back to 1995-96 - hearkening back to a time when only a fifth the number of people who use the Internet today were online. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the percentages (both male and female) of students entering computer science have increased in the intervening years, given the opportunities for exciting and lucrative employment in that field.
Second, it is important to look at the data as a whole. Only 324 women received bachelor degrees in computer science in 1971; in 1995, over 6,900 women did. Put another way, women received 14 percent of all comp-sci bachelor degrees in 1971, and 28 percent in 1995. The number of women granted masters in computer science went from 164 in 1971 to 2,699 in 1995. The number of women granted doctorates in computer science went from 3 (!!!) in 1971 to 161 in 1995.
So, on the whole, the number and the percentage of women getting degrees in computer science has increased dramatically.
Dr. Borg claims that the number of women going into engineering has "leveled off in the last five years." Dr. Borg probably has little or no data from the last five years, since there is such a dearth of available evidence. But let's consider the data that are available, which go through 1995-96. What can she possibly mean?
* Has the number of women getting undergrad degrees in engineering decreased? Nope - the number and the percentage have both held pretty steady since the late 70s. About 2 percent of all women who get bachelors get them in engineering, and about 13 percent of all men who get bachelors get them in engineering.
* What about compared to men? Have men been outpacing women in getting these degrees? No. In the 50s and 60s, men received very nearly 100 percent of all engineering bachelors. By 1980, women earned 10 percent of them, and by 1996, women earned 16 percent.
* Has the number of women getting bachelors in computer science decreased? Yes - in fact, this is the only "leveling off" anywhere in the data. However, this is because the number of women AND men getting bachelors spiked in the early 80s and decreased through the mid-90s. As far as the data indicate, fewer women AND men are getting bachelors in computer science, but despite the dip, the percentage of women scholars getting comp-sci degrees is holding steady. A related statistic, the percentage of the comp-sci degrees that go to women, has barely moved, except to parallel the spike in the mid-80s.
To summarize my two main points: (1) the data Dr. Borg and others cite to prove that the technology gender gap is widening are severely out of date; and (2) even so, the data do not actually show what they purportedly show.
Dr. Borg's fearful and pessimistic attitude ("I'm quite frightened. ... [T]he rollercoaster will go down eventually.") is not warranted, and not justified by facts. Yes, there is a technology gender gap, but it is closing.
Now, I greatly admire many things you have written, including your recent piece on the Harris polling firm, which did a good job of explaining a technical matter. However, the sentence used to summarize your article on Wired's homepage ("the number of women in computer science is actually decreasing") doesn't even correspond to Dr. Borg's claim, which is that the *percentage* of women in these fields is decreasing. Also, you seem to miss that point (percentages vs. numbers) in your follow-up question, asking about "these declining numbers" - when in fact, the numbers are not declining.
(Incidentally, you asked about math and *sciences*. In other fields of scientific endeavor, the gender gap has disappeared. For example, in biological sciences over half of all degrees have gone to women in recent years.)
This is very important, and deserves clarification, not just because your interview is in danger of crossing the line between journalism and activism, but because these distorted and outdated facts can inappropriately influence policymakers. Politicians and regulators are apt to act on incomplete evidence, and if they are fooled into believing the technology gender gap is widening, they may make inappropriate decisions.
Thanks for your time.
Yours,
Adam Keiper
Washington, D.C.
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
**************
Post-script: My letter was published on Wired's Rants and Raves page. I also received a gracious reply from the interviewer, who acknowledged that "Maybe I should keep a closer eye on the dek (front-door teaser) next time." -ATK
I've met a few female sysadmins in my life, and most of them are big, fat and repulsive. One of them had a moustach. One of them even looked large enough to be a sumo wrestler. God, I'm glad I didn't have to work with her. I would've thrown up if I had to.
Now, most women in computers don't start out like that, but thats how they end up.
Women belong in careers where they can look hot and feminine, such as marketing, sales, public relations, television anchoring, modeling, airline stewardess, striptease, teaching, day care, nursing, etc. Many of these fields are female dominated and pay extrememly well. No one has problems with that!
Most women are happy that they are not working with computer geeks as a computer geek!
Most guys will agree with me! When you go into a nudie bar, the LAST THING you want to see is someone who looks like a female computer worker!! The last kind of person you want to marry is a female computer worker!!
Can family support overcome that? HA! Not in a million years. Recent article I read in Family PC
talked all about how many parents restrict their kids computer time to purely homework related use.
I really want to know how much those kids are learning regurgitating Encarta.
I was fucking 8 when I got my computer. I learned the English language on it (Born in Romania). I'm able to participate in everything from f-cpu.tux.org to dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu (run by openlaw.org) at the age of 23 with only an Associates degree. I never took high level computer science and engineering classes yet I'm able to keep up with all but the VHDL/PCB layout in a mailing list for a group that's going to build a microprocessor. I'm not a law student yet I can follow every argument made on the dvd-discuss list which is the research list for the NY court case. All because I was exposed to technology. How fucking Myopic can people get? Horatio Algier can kiss my ass.
Family PC assholes touted it as an article on raising geniuses, actually it's as useless as that story about kids making cartoons about guns and violence -- how about having them discuss it instead for Christ's sake. How cute? They're learning human beings, not dumb pets.
What an absolute disappointment.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
a) women are avoiding CS like the plague.
b) the posts came in fast and furious in that "how to meet women" discussion a few months back.
Personally, I think that a lot of the difference comes in the different hobbies/sports/interests that people have as kids.
Someone posted earlier saying that girls aren't told to go play with their dolls anymore, but it scares me when I look at the toy stores to see stuff like a Barbie kitchen, or a play kitchen, or even computer software that pretends to be a kitchen.. bizarre! And all this stuff comes in pink. There's a "blue" workbench.
Now, Ms. Borg commented that when people make decisions in the workforce, all that makes up that person helps to make that decision. Imagine having years of "pink" persuading to help you choose your major?!
I've chosen not to attend university any further. Working in the IT industry, I've come across a lot of women who have flicked their hair, and batted their eyelashes. But the amount of serious women techs is low. Discouraging.
Ms Borg didn't really ake any suggestions on how to encourage women, but I really think that it needs to be a group of people in a school (promary, secondary level) who pro-actively encourage girls as well as boys to use and gain an interest in computers. If enough girls are encouraged, the group numbers will equalise, and girls will feel more comfortable.
That's one suggestion. Any more?
Chrisom.
--
Michelle
----
Be true, regret not, and let your star shine forth!
Women just don't have what it takes to be really excellent in the CS field, especially when it comes to programming and other more technical fields. Ms. Borg says something about it not being a matter of biological determination, but I think this is just not true. Women, as a whole, would be very reluctant to spend an entire night hacking away at some project just for the sheer pleasure of doing it. It just doesn't interest them. That's not to say they don't have the ability. Just no interest. The men that are attracted to computers are completely different in this aspect. To a true programmer, a sleepness night would be a very small price to pay for even the smallest amount of programming creation. And, of course, there are exceptions to everything - some men like to go out in public wearing dresses, so.. :)
- vir sine vestibus
This is this ranting with the correct format: Before anyone takes umbrage at what i'm about to say, let me explain That mr. Bill gates's relationship To The real world is emphatically peripheral. Instead of focusing on why all of the anxious sighing, longing, and Hoping of bill's heart is directed to a time when profligate individuals Can sucker us into buying a lot of junk We don't need, i would like to remind people that i must, on principle, reinforce notions OF positive self esteem. Plainly Stated, we're all in this Mess together. Bill's Magic-bullet explanations are often disregarded merely As ornery & are consequently not treated as the serious assaults on liberty and freedom that they undeniably are. Please don't misread my words here; bill's editorials are in conflict with accepted morality. Bill does not desire to benefit humanity, but rather to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose & shared sacrifice. U may Be picking up on something here In All of my responses to his conceited ideals. All Of my responses Presume That his actions are a hotbed of nepotism. Consider the issue of cynical jujuism. Everyone agrees that in addition To communicating an understanding of the terrible danger we face, i need To open Students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them, but there Are still some semi-intelligible mystics out there who doubt that he respects nothing, honors nothing, and values nothing beyond himself. To them i say: he represents The most recent incarnation Of the unique 2oth-century phenomenon known as "blockish anarchism". The FIRST Casualty of bill's activities is justice. As i understand it, bill wants nothing less Than to Blits media outlets with faxes & newsletters that highlight the Good points of his morally-questionable irritating singers, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his wicked whinges. Something recently occurred to me that might occur to bill, as well, IF He would just turn down the volume of his voice for a moment: bill Spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only Slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is unilateralism, which says to me that cameralism is correctly defined by its blathering style, structure, And methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises Or goals. The ideological underpinnings of his expostulations have struck a receptive chord Among thousands of anal-retentive mad gutter-dwellers. But let's not quibble about that. When i first encountered bill's refrains, All i could Think of was, "the nicest thing that can be said about Bill's cronies is that they are oppressive protestors out to retain an institution which, twist & turn As U like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity." why do we put up with bill? Oddly enough, his arguments would be a Lot more effective if they Were At Least accurate or intelligent, Not Just a load OF bull for the sake of being controversial. There are two main flaws with His litanies: i) his lackeys argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just depressurise The Frail vessel of human hopes, AND 2) the need his henchmen have for his inimical Ploys is especially strong as A means of transferring blame -- an outlet for the despair they Face When normal channels of PROTEST & change are closed. Maybe bill has a reason for acting The way he does, but i doubt it. He supports a wide variety of communications. Some are putrid; others are incompetent. A few openly support obscurantism. Isn't it historically demonstrated that he always tries to shift blame from Himself To the most officious insurrectionists i've ever Seen? Don't misunderstand Me; i'm not saying that mediocrity & normalcy are ideal virtues. IN fact, he is intentionally being shabby. It's a well-known fact that it's time for bill To stop his systematic assault on religious freedom. It's an equally well-known fact that there's something severely wrong with this picture. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is An understanding that Bill's assertion THAT he IS forward-looking, open-minded, & creative serves only to illustrate His ignorance & Poorly hidden bigotry. To deny that he has a hidden agenda is neurotic nonsense And political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because He shows a complete lack of foresight. And it is irresponsible because he is a very cold-blooded little MAN. The underlying message is that society as A whole should act As a unifying force to establish A supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere For offering public comment. On the issue of nativism, bill is wrong again. Sure, this is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which his agendas Are treated by everyone other than lewd soi-disant do-gooders. But last summer, i attempted what i knew Would Be a hopeless Task. I tried To convince bill that Compassion and moral principle are not The main motives For His actions. As i expected, bill Was totally unconvinced. Why Does He Want to direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in The organisation of our economic & cultural life? The answer is not obvious. Well, bill, we're all getting a little tired of U And UR kind messing up the world & then refusing to Accept responsibility For what you've Done. We'Re fed up. And the day is coming when u'll be held accountable for UR surly assertions. Maybe it's not fair to call his assistants "repugnant" just because They infiltrate The media with The express purpose of disseminating silly Information, but remember that when he hears Anyone say that we must coolly & objectively adopt the standpoint that he is chomping at the Bit For a chance to force us to tailor our ventures Just TO suit His stubborn whims, his answer is to Paint Pictures of pestilential worlds inhabited by Maladroit Selfish malcontents. THAT's similar To taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more To take personal action & purge The darkness from his heart while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we Hold most dear. It is therefore reasonable to Infer that his simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on Similar issues. Bill thinks That children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy c&y At them. Of course, thinking So doesn't make it so. i'Ll try not to dwell On this, but his ideologies serve no purpose other Than to defuse Or undermine incisive critiques of his pusillanimous behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. As far as i can tell, forbearance and kindly deportment are lost Upon bill. What he Doesn't realise is that if anything, debate With Him or a search for common Ground is Both a fruitless exercise and a suicidal strategy. Perhaps bill is doing The very thing for which he criticises others, but remember that his helpers All look like him, think like him, act like him, & deliver an additional Blow to dignity And self-worth, just like him. & all This in the name of -- let me See if i can get their propag&A straight -- brotherhood & service. Ha! His perversions are Mired in cantankerous duplicitous solecism. It is also worthy OF note that He is right About one thing, namely That Fear is what motivates Us. Fear OF what it means when violent traitors demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. Fear of what it says About our society when we teach our children that Everything is happy And fine & good. & fear of primitive turncoats like bill who stultify art & retard The enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. Let me close by reminding U that there is another side TO the Issue
Her arguement that women don't get to use computers at a young age due to their inability to fight for them against men is rediculous.
Programming comes down to the way you think. Computer Science requires you to think logically. A womens thought process is driven by emotion. Are they capable of logical thinking, of course, but it isn't engraved in their biology like it is mens.
Evoloution has left us this way and not many people will admit it. It is just simple biology of the human species.
Men all through time have had to think out a logical solution to finish a task women have not.
The connections made inside the brain. Einstein's brain size was irrelevant, he did not have complete seperation of the hemispheres and did have an exceptionally large portion of his pre-frontal lobe, the part thought to control mathematical reasoning.
:) So many stupid stereotypes.
I know that's not what you meant when you said that
It's sad that schools like CMU or any other school takes people not based on merit but rather by a statistic. When CMU takes more women just because they're women they've pushed out men who want to go to CMU and had higher scores on SATs/GPAs or whatever and more deserved to get in.
I'm a straight white male, I face this kind of opposition all the time. Drives me nuts.
When the women around here stop teasing me cause I'm a geek (the men don't do this, at least nowhere near as many) I'll recognise women are ready to equalize the computer job market. But if they do, it should be because they want to, as far as I can tell from the people I've met, women do not want to.
you get treated like a second class citizen by everyone you meet "Hi, I program computers..." (silence)
:-)
you're lucky if you keep a job more than two years at a time.
you never know when the company is going to hire a total jerk that does nothing but give everyone grief, yet you can't fire them cuz of the lawsuit issues, plus the client is paying for them anyway, so a decent-to-good work environment turns into a hellhole.
you never know when the investors will fold, or the client decides to drop your company for a place that does VB and H1-B visas. none of the crap works, but at least it's cheap and the learning curve short.
hi level people leave, and get replaced by idiots, rendering the entire tech department as useless at teats on a nun.
i can't beleive any college entrant is currently considering a career in this industry...the entire software scene has been in decline for the last 3-5 years.
engineering pay has been holding steady at $50k - $80k for a so-so job for the past several years, but real estate costs have skyrocketed in all the tech areas. oh, yeah, a 2 bdrm condo for $540K, what a deal. maybe if a scrimp and save, i can just cover the payments while i'm job hunting in two years.
it's a losing game. if i were going into the sciences now, the last field i'd pick would be comp sci. all the way up the chain, nothing but a-holes.
see? it's rubbing off on me, too. don't get me wrong, i love programming. i'd gladly write firmware, open gl, SAP, (whatever) nonstop for 10-12 hours...then go out with my programming pals. at least that's the way it used to be.
but now it's nothing but meetings, the clueless people writing broken requirements, that need their hands held, and give you nothing but grief in return, and the rude/arrogant personality deprived above and below.
when i got into this stuff, there were jokes, fun, monty python, cruising around, working odd hours, having a blast, being intellectual. now it's all money (and how to save it by reducing our benefits), documentation, hostility and desperation.
fuznuck, i think i need a new job
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
CMU sucks, you ain't missing anything good.
Take it from someone who has been there.
BTW: The "hackers" there are so f*cking arrogant they looked down on me, a male, just because I wasn't "in" with them. They were very cliquish.
I very well could understand a woman, or anyone for that matter, not being comfortable there.
Plus women tolerate not having a life much less than men (we should do the same) and one doesn't have any chance at a life there.
The CS dept was part of the School of Engineering at my U (UCLA). Believe me, it could be far worse. Mech E, EE, Aerospace, Nuclear, Chem E, have far fewer women enrolled than CS. CS is swimming with women by comparison. If you call ~5% swimming. And the campus was physically arranged by discipline too. All the science/engineering buildings were clustered in the central campus, biomedical in the south campus, arts/liberal/history in the north, and law/business/management in the east side. And each had its own specialized libraries too. Nothing was really centralized to mix people except maybe the dorms. So even at lunch or when you're not in class, or need to study in the library, you're still stuck with the gender make up of your 'zone' because you don't always have a lot of time to wander off before you your next class starts.
What about yourselves? Do you encourage your sisters and daughters to develop an interest in technology? Or do you plan to talk to them, but then notice that they are playing with dolls, instead of trucks, get disgusted and think they are a lost cause? Why do you alow society to make these educational decisions for you? Wouldn't you be an even happier person if your child shared your interests? Your only sibling sister was hacking away with you? You know, it's no big deal to get your son or brother interested in computers -- society sort of expects it anyway. Think how much more proud you would feel if it was your daughter, sister?
Of course, society would say "Oh, it must be so hard for her in math", people would try and persuade her to take up literature instead. Why? Because, these people would feel threatened by her. On the subconsious level, even women would feel like she's braver, stronger, smarter than them.
Did you, yourself, have to go through many psychological and social trials and tribulations before achieving your competence in computers? Did people point and laugh at you, call you names? Did people of the opposite sex consiously avoid you, showed no interest in you, because they knew that hanging out with you would mean ostracising themselves from their own social circle?
No. People expected you to be good at math. They constantly encouraged you to pursue your chosen career. They thought that a career in computers would let you make enough money to be an ideal breadwinner.
Was it hard for you to learn C++? Did it take you hours to figure out which port the mouse cable gets attached to? Or to find out that it's easier to change all the instances of your loop variable's name from 'i' to 'intI' using "find and replace" of your text editor?
No. It wasn't. Even if it was, you enjoyed every minute of it. So why do you think it would be hard er for another human being?
When you were in college did you avoid discussing politics or technology with women? Did you talk to them at all other than when trying to come on to them? Was the reason you chose CS the fact that you, on a subconsious level, wanted to establish your masculinity by choosing a traditionally male occupation? Were you afraid that other guys would think you are a sissy for studying art?
If there were any women in your CS class did you admire them for their intellect and courage, or did you look for every opportunity to ridicule the ocasional mistake they made in their code? If you think you were being competitive when you were doing that, do you believe they had an equal footing with you? Equal amount of support?
Do you realize now that women need your support?
www
I'm a female computer science major I'm one of like maybe three at the entire school. I don't think it's because women aren't interensted in CS, I personally believe that most of them out there can't handle it (sorry females). I know a lot of them who tried and then dropped out because of the math or because they didn't understand something else, or because programming was too hard. I personally have been interested since I was in high school. I was the only female in all of my programming classes there, and it didn't bother me one bit. It still doesn't bother me now. Most of the females I see are MIS majors, which according to me in my personal opinion is a really sissy major. My goodness even calculus isn't involved in that class. That and all of them drive me nuts in class asking stupid questions. Personally I would rather it be just like the way it is, a entire 5 in the department, because it works just fine to me, and I don't see a problem with it.
The era of dual income families didn't really start because to "women's rights" movements. It started because it became more and more necessary to make ends meet. From the Vietnam War era up until the Bush years, inflation went up, everything got more expensive, The traditional single income family couldn't make it like in the old days. So women started to work. We're in an economic bubble now. Lots of tech jobs with good pay. One income can confortably support a family again so fewer women see a need to go to college or enter the workforce as much as before.
what if our assumtion that men and women are exactly the same is incorrect? what if it has nothing to do with encouragement or discouragement but instead with the basic "instincts" if you will of the gender in general?
What if women are simply more inclined to work in fields with more meaningful human interaction (the "helping professions") and less interested in abstract, somewhat impersonal professions such as CS and IT?
I know it's not popular to point out that there may be a fundamental difference between the genders, but it's true. There's more separating us than simply genatalial differences.
Just my two cents worth...
wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men Cato
"The truth has a million faces, but there is only one truth."
Hermann Hesse
I think the previous post may have missed the point. Men do not have more to offer the industry than women or vice-versa. The important part is that if there are men and women in something close to equal numbers, there will be a broader range of ideas and experiences at the table than if a group is made up of all men or all women.
The idea is not that one sex is better than the other but that the two together are better than either one alone.
fordede
>:]
I go to a moderately-sized high school (~1100 students) and we have 4 periods of CS, with 3 different classes offered. I know that may not seem like a whole lot, but it's a good starting base, and better than most schools I've heard of. We have 2 periods of Pascal and 2 periods of APCS (C++). I'm in the second year course, with one other guy and and 2 girls. One of those girls couldn't find the power switch last year, but she gave it a good effort, and she leads our project teams now. I usually come in during my study hall to work, so I never have homework, and I sit next to a girl who no one would have ever imagined capable of programming, from surface appearance. She spends half the time gossiping with people in nearby seats, and once actually painted her nails when she was supposed to be programming. But she has stuck to the work. She struggled through Pascal last year, and actually realized she liked it by the end of the year. Now she's doing great in AP CS. She's a perfect example of opportunities overturning stereotypes. If you want to look for the problems, you can blame psychology or society, or whatever you want, but the solution is in high school.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
female CS majors on the decline? female CS majors? there is such a thing? where???? only a handful here at RIT
but thats the life, i guess. ive gotten used to seeing the same classroom full of guys for 3 years.
It would be nice if the attitude of this society would shift toward a realistic one, namely, women and men are different. It is clearly documented that estrogen and testosterone as well as other hormones in characteristic blood levels differing between those of the sexes have major differences in their actions on the development of neurons and their connections as well as their growth and maintenance.
It is probably quite true that society plays a large role in the development of a person, but the genetics still play a huge role. I don't care how much someone alters the environment of an apple seed; it is never going to become an orange tree.
I am not pretending to know why these differences in the joys/prowess/interest in computing may exist more in a majority of men (picture overlapping gaussian curves), but I do say that they do exist and very well may represent a difference of hardware. Obviously, there a some women who do well in high school math contests against men, but they are definitely in the minority.
Borg says that women are oppressed by their male counterparts throughout their respective years of growing up. She forgets that a beauty of computing (gaming, writing code, etc.) is that it can be done without competition in the privacy of one's own home. Just because John told Lisa she can't program worth a darn (a rare scenario, I suspect) she can always go home and work on a computer herself. (If this is where one wants to argue that parents don't buy computers for girls as often as they do for boys, I will not continue; there will always be another argument for whatever answer I return.)
Finally, in response to the statement, "The other piece is the image of people who go into this field. The image is 'geeks, gadgets, and greed.' It's people who you don't want to be like," I would like to say that this should make either sex shun from the field of computing. What male in his right mind would adopt a lifestyle of near celibacy if it were not for the strong interest of and realization of beauty behind computing. Quite a number of replies to this article show that people who have gained the most from computers over the years were just people with an interest in it and had a computer. Nothing was said about attemting to gain an image of any sort.
This will solve the problem.
One of the most cynical deals recently involves the merger of two software companies trying to cash in on the Linux operating system craze: Andover.net Inc. of Acton, Mass., and VA Linux Systems Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif.--which went public within 24 hours of each other back in early December. Less than eight weeks later, on Feb. 3, the two companies announced a stock-for-stock merger in which the California company has agreed to acquire the Massachusetts crowd for about 6 million shares of VA Linux and $60 million in cash. The cynicism in the transaction is not simply that the deal took place so shockingly soon after the two companies wrapped up their I.P.O.'s, but that the transaction included what amounted to a legalized bribe on the part of the VA Linux bunch to get the Andover.net crowd to accept the offer. The deal means that the $60 million in cash from VA Linux will go directly to Andover.net's shareholders, at $3.81 per share, in effect handing over the same amount of money Andover.net raised in the I.P.O. only weeks earlier. Prior to the I.P.O., the company's insiders had only paid a grand total of $15.7 million in cash into the company. Now they are being handed back $60 million as compensation. What a deal. As for investors in VA Linux, they are getting hosed. The company's stock was priced in the I.P.O. at $30 per share, but opened for trading at $299 and instantly shot to $320, then collapsed like many of the others and eight weeks later is now selling for $110. Faced with 39.7 million total shares outstanding already--of which only 4.4 million are held by the general public--investors in the stock can now look forward to the imminent registration of 4 million more shares by the company, which will doubtless come pouring into the market soon thereafter, thanks to the Andover.net deal. In other words, the only really valuable asset Andover.net ever had--its cash from the I.P.O.--was creamed off by the company's insiders almost the very instant they got their hands on it, leaving VA Linux's shareholders to face a 100 percent increase in the float of their own stock for the privilege of winding up with the worthless trash that the Andover.net bunch dumped at the very first opportunity.
but nobodys complaining. You wonder where all the women go, that create the gender disparity at tech schools..some of them goto liberal arts schools..(which usually have between 1-4% more women then men)..and they goto art schools. ESPECIALLY for night school. Last year when I was taking night classes, (both in traditional fine arts, and some computer stuff) the percentages were about 60% female for fine arts and 75%-80% for computer courses (animation, desktop publishing..etc..) (I'm not sure what these figures go to show). And yes, when we do computer stuff in our classes, the people to step up to the computers are almost invariably men..who don't ask for help no matter what goes wrong
------ Work is so much easier when you don't
I have TA'd 4 undergraduate CS courses at CMU now.
Your assertion that the new female students are incapable is just plain wrong. Some are, perhaps, but I've seen just as many men (percentage wise) do poorly as women.
I will agree that CMU has issues with sometimes admitting underqualified students (as would any university), but the correlation with gender is just not there. (Instead, it resides in the perceptor's mind!)
- Tom 7
I'll be the first to tell you that women ARE plenty capable. I know this from first hand experience, as my mom is a Phd. in EE (top in her class) with several highly successfull startup companies and patents. She is honestly the all-round smartest person I've ever known...not "genius"...but I think most "genius" isn't really genius at all. (On somewhat of a side note, she put herself through all of this literally alone as a women, far worse than most of today's women have to contend with. e.g. Professors telling her in the beginning of the semester that they didn't believe her (women) capable of doing the work...only later to eat crow and then some)
I'm not going to tell you that there aren't some unfair social expectations out there--there are. However, it is equally naive to say that men and women are wired the same. I think there are also certain maternal obligation and desires that can't be ignored--men don't really face it. This is not to say that women should be home and barefoot (or any similar bullshit), but rather that many professional women start out in demanding fields, discover later in life, after graduating from grad school, law school, or what have you, that they want to raise children. This frequently requires a change of priorities...atleast for awhile...which means their ULTIMATE career paths are going to be altered.
I do believe there are fundamental genetic (nature, not nuture) differences between men and women. While I can't pinpoint them all...as that tends to be a rather risky proposition. I've seen plenty enough evidence of it, to say that the differences between men and women in the sciences is more than just social and upbringing. When is the last time you've seen a women lock themselves up in a room, and obsess about something to the exclusion of all else (e.g., body odor, hair, social life, etc) until they solve it, or come up empty handed? We see plenty of male geeks/techies do this in large numbers. Yet, I'm hardpressed, despite my experience, to think of a single women like this in anything (not just computers...)
Though just a single observation (not necessarily true across the board, although I intuit it to be so), the differences between my mother and father typify the differences between the two highly skilled respective element of the sexes. My father, too, was an engineer. Though not as degree'd, he was, by all accounts, the best in his field. As an engineer, he was better than even my mom...atleast in several important areas. One major difference I noticed about my father was that he was very much of the nerd or geek that I mentioned before (who will focus on something with such determination, that the rest of the world is just irrelevant). He loved his technology for the sake of technology. I can't say this about my mom. She loved technology for the sake of delivering a product...of helping people...or some greater end, other than her immediate edification. While my mom also has the ability to see any problem through, it just aint the same. There isn't that one track mind....the kind of mind which I've seen amongst many of the top scientists of today and the past.
I'm also equally sure that there are certain qualities that women have that in a long-term career can prove to be equally valuable in certain fields. I also believe women are fundamentally more social creatures than men...which may explain my mom's success in some ways. Very few people have the ability to manage and understand all types of people (particularly geeks and nerds) and also fully comprehend (as opposed to superficially) the underlying technical problem(s).
More observations...look at girls and boys sports between at a very young age. Across many different cultures, the boys and girls start to differentiate themselves significantly, in terms of aggresion, and the like.... In any case, I can only scratch the surface here, but the mere fact that I lack official stats and figures does not mean that men and women are exactly the same mentally.
Being a tech or a CS grad sucks, you get used, you make the product and these goddamn suits who play golf on wed. make the bucks. Own your own company, sell out, or live a hellish existance as an under appricated programmer
how many great looking girl do you know who slide by in cs cause they take advantage of underappricated cs dorks?
[Y]ou name a more complicated invention than a piece of software that manipulates billions of microscopic switches billions of times per second.
Er, how about the little thingy with the billions of microscopic switches on it? That's a pretty complicated doohickey.
enmity.
spoken like a true EE major.
tsia.
enmity.
ugh, i can't believe i just wrote that.
After boys have been abandoned for the past 20 years in education, HOW FUCKING DARE they dominate some academic field! There must be more positive discrimination against them and more EQUITY places for minorities.
I followed a link to the Cornell Society for Women Engineers from our CS homepage and also found a 404. It just happened to be an out-of-date link, though -- I ran a site search and it turned up a bunch of the CSWE's (active) pages. So it's not that bad (unless, of course, you don't go to Cornell. then you should tell your web guys (girls!) to get back to work.)
enmity.
I noticed a lot of replies dealing directly with CMU. Now I did apply there, and I was accepted (but NOT into comp sci), but I'm not going there right now. I see that everyone on Slashdot from CMU had to put in their two cents on the matter.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what goes on at CMU. I think half of these posts are arrogant and sickening, and the others are just self-serving (when it comes to school). I've found very little productive conversation on the matter at all in these replies. It wouldn't be so bad if one or two people did it, but I think about 20 did. CMU students are NOT representative of the entire CS population in this country. For example, you probably have a LOT more women than we do, which makes a HUGE difference. My social life is that much worse because there's no real females in my classes at all.
The real reason why there's no female comp sci students is that Comp Sci is a ridiculous major to have. It's like engineering, only less social. I personally have to stick with it just because I can still graduate in 4 years if I do. When I graduate, I'm not doing anything in computers or anything CLOSE to what I've learned in school. That's my problem and mine alone, but I think girls and guys alike are often repelled by the general CS cirriculum, just because they teach you how to be the best CS professor and leave no options to "take the easy road". Basically they kick your ass with ridiculously difficult and badly taught classes and then wonder why enrollment is down. Sheesh.
At least where I go to school, the kind of people who are CS majors are not the same kind of people who play football.
I've seen 5 year old boys push girls around. I, however, don't ever see guys in the common computer labs here pushing women of terminals.
Get real.
I would hardly describe Anita Borg as a "man hating feminist". nor would I describe her as wanting to bend the world to her will.
I am not denying in the least people's right to choose their profession, but I see nothing wrong to removing barriers that have nothing to do with ability that are placed in the way of certain students. these do exist, mistake me not. of course, letting in a "disadvantaged" student with lower qualifications is never the way to go...
Lea
This all sounds hauntingly familar. when I was in college some 15 - 19 years ago it was almost exactly the same. In the freshmen level classes about 33 % were women, by the time I was in sr software engineering we had one female out of 30 students. I have now worked for 5 or 6 employers, at only one were there a substantial minority of women developers. at Cendant IT we had about 4 women developers out of 18 thats still very low. At Cendant they were actually trying to hire women so usually they had to hire MIS majors that were women. Now I'm at a startup that specializes in web development, e-commerce and anything java, on a floor with 50 developers, 3 are women. Now a majority of the management/customer account rep types are women. This is long and winding, but the trend I see is that by and large, for what ever reason, women do'nt seem to be interested in computer science. But think about this how many women do see working as auto mechanics? ** Rember when you are things of giant heads there IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIG-GIANT-HEAD
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
"What do you think of this doll Johnny?
-"Dolls are for girls!"
"No. Dolls are for everyone, Johnny"
-"I don't want to play will the doll!"
"Pick up the doll, Jonny"
-"No"
"PICK UP THAT DOLL!!"
-"NO!"
"Johnny, it is for the good of mankind that we
emasculate you. We are placing our expectaions about how the world should be, squarely on your shoulders! How dare you dissapoint us! Too bad kids have to have things like this injected into their lives. Let them be kids for chrissakes. Theirs scientific proof to the differences between men and women, so in a way, what you're doing to your son is unnatural. You've succumbed to the neurosis of some popular belief and using your son as a guinea pig. Don't be ashamed that you have balls.
Along with the rise of the web and the popularization of the internet comes the broadening of careers that the majority of people consider within the scope of 'information technology' - its not all programmers and MIS anymore. In light of the sweeping changes that have occurred in only the past few years, are women instead seeking majors and emphases that are useful in IT but not part of the 'computer science' curricula of universities?
I personally know of quite a few female acquaintances whose interest in computers have shifted in such a manner, from the 'traditional' CS areas into other fields related to computing, especially graphic design and communications/media - where they fully intend to have a future in IT, and a career in computers... just not as coders or engineers, but as designers and content providers instead.
As an example of a change in what women percieve as more attractive options to CS, it certainly seems that there is a *very high* proportion of females in the area of 'webdesigning', especially in coming up with the most avant-garde and creative sites.
Basically, is it just a percieved problem that fewer females are becoming CS majors, or are they gravitating to other positions in the computing world instead?
I wonder if this decline is in any way related to American feminism.
I'm serious. As a child/teenager I was deeply into science. Went to summer schools, won high scool maths competitions. Yet was told by teachers, peers, comedy shows, news, books, etc (aka "society") that real women didn't do maths and science. It was unladylike, women weren't logical etc. It was cute not to be able to balance your checkbook.
So basically I thought "fuck you" and got my physics degree (1st class homours in nuclear physics; minors in pure & applied maths, with logic and stats in there too.) And also got involved in some minor ways with the feminist movement which was at the time busy with equal pay, equal rights, anti-discrimination etc.
Excellent stuff. All humans are worthy of equal dignity. And I got to be a brave and noble pioneer. (Yes I know Ada beat me to it by a long way, but nobody told you about that back then. That sort of rediscovery was part of what the feminist movement was doing back then.)
It took about 10 years before the feminist movement seemed to be taken over by ratbags talking about how "patriarchal" logic and maths and reason were, and that women were somehow morally superior beings who didn't need that dull linear masculine style of thought.
I cannot express how utterly pissed off that makes me. And how depressing for girls now to be called unfeminine and unwomanly by so-called feminists.
It's just like prohibition - after women got the vote, the suffragists drifted off elsewhere leaving only the crackpots behind. That time it turned into the temperance movement. This time it seems to be censorship. Fuck fuck fuck.
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
I know we bend the rules of statistics pretty heavily at my work :P we have 3 female programmers and 3 male programmers Including myself.. I think a *LOT* of it has to do with attitudes towards technology and computers. My Girlfriend had *never* even used a computer other than like once for a school project in HS. She was in her first year of college and I introduced them to her and she loves it.. She can geek out just as good as me or you or the next guy/err.. GAL. I think its just a problem of getting more women comfortable with computers and the social computers are for geeks stigma.. And I think many many more women would be into computers then.. Heh.. In theory ( JUST in theory now ) Women should make better programmers than men.. in practice I dont see this very often and I still cant figure it out. But womens brains should be able to cope with programming better since they use more of there brain at once and dont clearly focus. so they should be able to keep in mind several things and there programming should be all around more effecient.. But that never happens and most of the billiant programmers I know are guys.. (Im not saying there are not women programmers who are good as my GF can almost put me to shame in C ( which is sad :P )) but.. This is *NOT* i repeat *NOT* a problem that colleges need to try and fix by minority admissions ( IE women being a minority ) if they do.. not much is being accomplished this late in the game it is a K-12 thing and establishing your interests so you have a damn clue before you go to college.
well, if those are all that are qualified and interested, you're right in your opinion. however, I have observed barriers to entry that have nothing to do with skill in many technical majors. there's nothing to lose and so much to gain by taking these down.
yes, I see semi-qualified female EECS/CS majors at berkeley. I see a LOT more unqualified guys. the girls stick out, whether good or bad, and there's a lot of attention paid to their performance because (get this) people have different expectations for them. personally I think that's a load of crap.
Lea
So, just using myself as an example, how did I (female! wow! And look- she's learning C++ - and likes it!) get interested in this stuff? I do believe in supportive family and schools. Everyone encouraged me to do as much as I could with math. People don't make fun of me for liking math, or technology, or computers. I guess I'm lucky that way:-) And when I began to see the possibilities in computers, I wasn't discouraged by anyone...I don't think they really understood why I was interested, but they didn't think it was ridiculous. Guys don't put me down. Hmmm.
Anyway, the point of this post: I can't think of a specific way in which I was really discouraged or encouraged to get involved with computers. I did it myself. I was supported by my family and friends to do whatever I wanted, even if they didn't understand it, but no one said things like "wouldn't you like me to show you how this works?". Does this mean more girls would be in cs if they really wanted to? Well, I was also raised in an environment of contempt for prevailing attitudes of society, like the idea that girls aren't good at math. Perhaps I'm just less affected by other people's opinions (sometimes I think this would be a trait worth developing in children).
I am willing to believe that there are less women than men with the right mindset for cs, period. But this doesn't mean that all those with an interest, and not just people like me who apparently aren't affected by societal attitudes, will actually get involved in any way with computers, until they get support from other people.
Lily
i'm a freshman in cs at uiuc which is 3'rd or 4'th best program in the nation. there are girls. but not many. and the ones there are, are quite atrocious, in more ways than one. but boys are better at this cs stuff, or that's the way it seems to me and every other male cs kid i know. thank god for the college liberal arts and sciences.
Boys are wilder and more aggressive. So when there is computer time available, they will push the girls off. If teachers and parents don't do something about that, the girls won't fight back.
okay, this sounds a little far out to me. i'd certainly agree that boys tend to be more aggressive, but i've never ever seen that translate into "boys pushing girls off computers." access to the machines has, at least in my experience, always been equal. in fact, probably more equal than in the classroom: when students are interacting as a class, its pretty clear that male aggressiveness will have some impact on the confidence/performance/etc of the supposed less aggressive female students. but when the students are in front of screens, theyre primarily interacting with the machines, not each other. girls arent (at least directly) faced will their aggressive male counterparts. that seems to me a relatively liberating situation.
..of course, if girls tend to be more socially oriented, it would make sense that few are interested in hours of lonely hacking..
anyway, i didnt think Borg said anything interesting or new on this issue. probably the best thing ive read on it was this article on freshmeat. SethEntry level jobs are less stressful than college. More profitable. Leave one with lots of free time (compared to someone taking 18 credit hours, anyways). And don't involve keeping crazy hours. Lots of people just don't wanna bother, because they don't need to. So... if you really want more people majoring in CS or CpE rather than going to work early, you have to make it more appealing.
As in, damn near FREE.
How about VA using some of it's newfound wealth to set up a scholarship program? IBM gives loads of money to higher education. So does DELL, and even Microsoft. For VA, setting up 10 $2,500/yr scholarships is pennies in a very big bucket. It looks great to the press, and even better to the recipients. You can pick people on whatever criteria you chose; grades, free software experience, advocacy, or most-shameless-grub-for-money (me! me!).
The simple fact is, a non-graduate can be rich by 25 if they're any good and end up getting stock options before their company IPO's. Your best and brightest KNOW this, and it draws a great number of them away from universities, because they COST money, and only reward you with stress, debt, and lost sleep. If you want more people to graduate, make school the better option; one of the easiest ways to do that is to make it cheap. A VA Linux Systems Scholarship Program would certainly help.
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
I too once thought that getting formalized schooling was the only ticket to making money. But then I realized that a mere education would do nearly as well. I'm 21, have no degree own a house, and make >$30/hour plus benefits. I like school, but it would be nothing short of insanity, economically speaking, to go now. Why not just wait until my stock portfolio is large enough that I can go, living off of my dividends? I'm sure I'll come out ahead of those who delay their earnings by a few years, while racking up loans!
I think that people who go to college, especially for CS, should do so out of a love for the subject, not for economic reasons.
I'm a gnu world man.
I'd very much like to find out to what extent it's true that boys 'push girls off the computers', and to what extent it's true that 'girls just aren't interested in computers'.
Can we hear from some school teachers on this please?
Do you have to control the boys so the girls can have a go? Do you have to encourage the girls to do so? If so, what happens when the girls get their go--do they want to come back for more, or...?
"We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code." Dave Clark, IETF
For those of you that thinks coding is hard and that's why the girls are scared, this is not the right sitution.
In CS, we learn more about the concept and theory of computation. Only 3-4 courses where you have to code, but the focus is still on the concepts. To me, it seems that women thinks different than men. I notice that during recent group studies, when it comes to definations, girls are the best, but when it comes to the application of the computation theory, girls just stopped there. And this is not from only one girl but from about 10 female I have meet in my University career.
In the first year, I can see the classroom with about 40% girls but now, in third year, only about 25% are left.
BTW, there are exceptions in every rule, I have also seen some girls that do REALLY well in CS.
I couldn't make it through the article without thinking about that image of Bill Gates with all the Borg apparati strapped to him. As a second year CS student at SUNY Binghamton, I can attest that it would seem that there are a lot fewer female students in the upper level CS classes. There are a few though, and most of them are smarter than me... although I'm not sure that would take too much...
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
The "problem" is that many women simply don't find computer programming to be interesting. Is that bad? Of course not! At the very least it means that those who do will be sought after by colleges.
There are some damn fine female programmers out there (just as there are some really bad ones on both sides of the gender fence), but that doesn't mean that half of the programmers need to be women. If, on average, more men are inclined to be programmers, why not accept the ratios and go on with your life?
The interviewee seems to discount the notion that biologically that girls aren't interested in the sciences. However she continues in the argument that the aggressiveness of boys is one of the causes. If she concludes there is a biological difference in the aggression in the different genders, why couldn't there be a difference biologically on how interested one is in the sciences?
>Wealth creation is the only human activity that >can be morally justified.
I think that life boils down to having fun. After all, would you rather be doing something that you consider fun, and live (for example) in an ideal communist society (obviously this can't happen, since ideal communism always breaks), or would you rather have to do a crappy job that makes lots of money, but you hate it. I know I'd take the fun life.
In this day and age, wealth can usually keep you happy, though.
Reading the rest of your post, I've come to the conclusion that you are either trolling for fun, or are incredible bigotted and ignorant, and quite probably very stupid. If you are trolling for _fun_, then note that you've just donated some evidence in support of my argument that humans do things to try to have more fun overall. (sometimes we do things we don't like, but we do them because they give results which we do like.)
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Did you, yourself, have to go through many psychological and social trials and tribulations before achieving your competence in computers? Did
people point and laugh at you, call you names? Did people of the opposite sex consiously avoid you, showed no interest in you, because they knew
that hanging out with you would mean ostracising themselves from their own social circle?
Actually, yes. When I was in high school, I was constantly ignored by the opposite sex and ridiculed for my pursuits of CS. The things that I found interesting (Intel Assembly, C, etc.) drew blank stares from a lot of people if I ever tried to talk about them. People got up and moved away from me at lunch because they didn't want to hear me go off on some CS tangent - and still people say "Don't talk about school. You're not in class right now." I am a male.
This is the only portion of your post that I disagree with. My experiences make me acutely aware of the need to provide support. Women (and men) need support and the freedom to choose their own futures. It's all about generating passion for learning. Without that passion, there is no desire to work towards something like a CS degree. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Romantic (e.g., Goethe, E.T.A. Hoffman) and I believe people should aspire to expand their horizons and enjoy themselves, searching for that "höheres Dasein" (higher state of being for those who don't speak German). One should find something in which one can totally immerse oneself. I am studying CS because I love solving CS problems. I also study linguistics because I love learning about languages and reading their literature, esp. folklore. Had I not received support from my parents, teachers, and good friends, I would not be where I am today. I believe that finding a career that is mentally rewarding is far better than settling for one that is financially rewarding.
Maybe my philosophy can be expressed as a paraphrasing of a proverb: Catch someone a fish, and you will feed them for a day. Teach someone to fish, and you will feed them for a lifetime. Teach someone to love to fish, and they will never starve for fulfillment.
- Y
"There is no culture in computer science, only cults." - M. Felleisen
Dr. Anita Borg (her real name)
...was there a reason to assume that the doctor might have been using a false identity?
"Her real name"
Okay, in case you didn't know, Borg is a relatively common name in Sweden (and Finland, probably Norway and Denmark too). I'm sure the doctor has heard millions of silly borg-jokes from people who see the word "borg" and immediately go like "wow, dude, you were like named after a race from Star Trek, heavy dude, yeah wow".
"Borg" is just a surname of a person, just like Smith or Jones or Miller.
"Hi, I'm Robin Miller, and you know what, that's my real name! Frickin' 'leet!"
There're few things sicker than trying to get people to go into a field in which they genuinely have no interest in, just to satisfy economic pressures or whatever. My government back home does that - they're trying to get more women into engineering because there's a need for engineers.
You don't know what you're asking for. A warning for you, these things come in packages: a society which does what you're suggesting is a very dictatorial, authoritarian society with limited respect for individual dreams and desires - it is in such a society which I lived for most of my life, and it is not good.
Why should anyone get up in arms because a self-selected group (computer science students) doesn't match the demographic makeup of the general population?
Each engineering student is an INDIVIDUAL, and I don't see any benefit at all in trying to steer people toward something they may not be interested in, just because there aren't enough (women | left-handed | Green eyed) hackers.
There aren't as many women riding Harley's as men, and there aren't as many women working on shrimp boats either, and there also aren't nearly as many women working on framing houses or rough-in plumbing. WHY SHOULD ANYONE CARE?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll get back to my urgent project of trying to achieve parity between men and women in the hobby of model sailboating.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
When writing in declarative languages (C, Pascal, FORTRAN), put your commands in sequential order
Surely you mean imperative language?
Not having gone to CMU, I can't speak on the competitiveness of entry into it, but I can speak on my own experiences with Texas A&M, and the Computer Engineering program(a degree which is often overlooked in almost every discussion of "techie" degrees.) Also, I would like to say something on what I think is the biggest reason that girls/women/non-males(^_^) don't go into CS/CE programs.
:)
A&M has a two stage program for Computer E., EE, and I believe for CS, where you take your first 60 hours of courses during the first stage. During that time, you take all of your basics(R^3) and hopefully you've been taking the lower numbered courses for your major cs120, cs210, math up through Cal [2,3](I forget the designators), histories, etc. When you hit 60 hours(or thereabout), you have to have proven(via gpa) to the university that you can hack it, so to speak. It's at this point where the business school picks up an awful lot of new students who never crack another book again because of not being able to make it into the upper level classes. It was at this point that the very few girls who were in my lower level cs courses tended to bail and go for something more "feminine" and acceptable than a real CS or CE degree, like MIS, business admin, what-have-you(my personal opinion of the business school at A&M is pretty low, it's really, in my experience, for dweebies that couldn't make it in any other degree plan, and not just CS/EE/CE).
I have no personal theories about the inability of women to handle the tough majors(I have two female friends who both double-majored in Math and Bio-chem, one of whom was also taking Russian at the same time). They go against what is "normal" and "accepted" for women in American society. They're out-spoken among males and females alike, and will call you on any bullshit you try and put over on them(I know guys that fit the female stereotype of quiet and non-confrontational as well). One of my room-mates is an art-student(I know, how cliche can I get), but she's nearly the same way. Both of her parents are programmers(just as an interesting reference for the fact she _definitely_ had exposure), and she's been brought up, much like the first two, to really believe that she can be as good at anything as she wants to be. This brings me back to the previous paragraph.
The girls that I've talked with who are "techie" majors are usually of the same type as the girls in the second paragraph. They had the personal drive to enter the society of engineers and techies and learn. The ones who moved to the business school or something else, I always knew would never make it as engineers(I use the term _very_ generically here, a CS degree is _not_ the same as working your ass off to become a professionally recognized Engineer, and no, I'm not bitter about it
So, what's my point to saying that I knew they'd never cut it? I know a lot of guys that I knew would never make it, and most of them didn't either. My room-mate, despite being capable of dealing with a computer as an appliance/tool, and having no fear of the computer, the software, or the people that know what to do with it, has no desire to learn how to do anything with a command-line, or anything else. I know guys that are that way too. She knows she could learn it if she was interested in it though. The ones(guys and girls) that I knew would never make it(and not just by reason of being complete feebs, which many were), were the ones who couldn't be bothered to really learn how to do something new. You know the type. The people that don't want to learn how to do anything so they can claim ignorance and not have to think(ow ow, I just had a thought!).
The thing I see as the biggest problem is that girls especially, from birth, seem to be told that thinking is bad for them(just spend 3 hours watching daytime television, if that's not a big sign that says: "you're all morons, so we'll lie to you and tell you what is good", I just don't know what is; and yes, a certain demographic of mostly women are a target audience for that time slot). This is _slowly_, _painfully_ going away, but I am STILL amazed how stupid(not dumb, which I equate with inability) people can be. I see this with guys too, but it's less accepted for guys to be stupid than for girls it seems(anyone remember a time when it was just expected that guys would know how to change a tire, and girls wouldn't? Remember a time when guys would stop their car to get out and help?)
So, how to fix it? Don't tolerate it. Pretty simple eh? Parents make all the difference in a society. I'm in Germany right now(ex-eastern at that), and the number of women engineers that I work with(all of them extremely sharp and capable) is much higher than I work with in the US. The most important thing, I think, is to realize that they are still feminine, and they are still sharp as a razor. They weren't told that being a girl was bad, or that being a smart girl was bad, or any of this other kind of insinuated bullshit. They were supported in what they wanted to do BY THEIR PARENTS.
Engineering fields have a character to them, just like kinesiology, art, music(just TRY talking to a die-hard music-major sometime to get a cool perspective on how little you know about anything musical), poultry science(*gack* I shit you not), forestry, political science, etc. Engineers have been _engineers_ a VERY long time let's not forget. Not as long as artists have been flaky, or politicians have been weasly, but a very long time(DaVinci is an argued origin of the discipline, but I think it goes back further). Yes, these disciplines were born under a time where women couldn't vote, couldn't own land, etc. and that's important to remember, but let's not get too gung-ho about making equalities out of differences at the expense of destroying all tradition. Women and men are different, duh. These(CS/CE/EE) are "masculine" fields, *shrug*, if you say so. I say they're aggressive fields, which happen to suit males, on average, very well. Women can be aggressive/confident too, so if they have what it takes to make it across the bar, they need to be encouraged to do what the guys had to do to get there as well. I sure as hell know that it wasn't easy to get my degree. But if I had, goddess(sic) forbid, wanted to be like the fruity interior decorator guy on tv telling me how cute the curtains are with the little bows, I'm pretty damn sure I could do it at least as well as he does. That's the attitude it takes to succeed in anything. If you treat someone like they can't do anything long enough, they'll believe it. Most engineers are the kind of person that hates being told they can't do something. If that's not in the heart of someone, then they shouldn't be an engineer. Maybe Zoology(how many o's do ya put in that?) is for you, or Forestry, or architecture(not an easy discipline either).
As a pseudo-related side rant: Denying femininity to be accepted as an engineer is just stupid. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm tired of the bull-dike, gotta be better than everyone else, female engineer syndrome. Even other girls don't like them. Being confident, being right, and being able to argue your case is one thing(and yes, this is an important part of being in the industry. Suck it up. Technology is not for the weak of mind, nor of heart. I'm not about to go work in the hair-stylist(blatant stereotype) industry and insist that it change to fit me.), being as bullheaded and blind as the most pigheaded football coach is entirely different.
Mad Monk!
It's unfortunate, but before, during, and after college, most computer skills are developed through hacking-by-oneself. This requires a good deal of time to devote.
Most "normal" kids won't devote that kind of time - they're too busy playing baseball or going to the mall. "Socially challenged" kids are much more likely to spend a great deal of time with computers.
Now, here's where gender comes in - more losers are male than female. Why? I don't know, but that's the question that we should be asking. Why is it that boys are more likely to be sitting alone at home than girls are?
I notice that the Indian or Asian CS major demographic tends to be more gender-balanced. That's because in their culture, boys and girls are more equally likely to not have friends to go do social things with.
First:
- argument by assertion. It is a problem because I say so. It must be due tro discrimination because I say so.
Second:
- blatant derogatory generalisations about boys (they are "aggressive" and scare the girls away from the computers). I find this offensive and sexist.
Third
- still doesn't accept that there are biologically mediated differences between men's and women's brains (which do affect different people in different degrees, so yes some girls are good at maths). We have been hearing this nonsense since the 60s. It isn't true, sister. Open your eyes. And your mind.
Would you - could you - fly in a plane built using a "feminist physics" or a feminist engineering?
... yes, there really is a connection between this topic and the distributed DoS attacks that made the news last week.
As David Dittrich pointed out in his interview answers, attacks such as these are possible primarily because so many machines on the Internet are poorly secured. And that is mainly because there just aren't enough skilled sysadmins out there with the ability to do it right.
Part of the problem, to be sure, are the suits who don't put enough attention and resources into hiring and training good sysadmins. But part of the problem is that there just aren't enough qualified people to start with. And there's the connection, because as Dr. Borg (what a name!) pointed out in the article, if women had been getting involved in technology as much as men have over the past decade or so, today's labor shortage certainly wouldn't be so bad (and might not have existed at all).
Frankly, I think that a lot of the guys (I repeat: guys) in the thread so far who have been downplaying this problem are asinine in principle. The present inequality in a branch of the economy that's become so important should concern everyone; and it's easy for you to ignore it if you're in the majority.
But even if you look at it on purely pragmatic grounds, the dearth of women in technology is still a problem crying out for a solution, because the workforce shortage is a problem, and we're leaving about 50% of the population essentially out of the picture. The labor shortage may be getting us a lot of job security and good pay, but we're also getting exceedingly long work weeks, and worst of all, too many critical tasks are being assigned to too few people. The result is that computer security, among other things, falls by the wayside.
We have to have more skilled people in technology, and that won't happen without more gender equality.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
My major, Chemical Engineering, has about 40% chicks, as opposed to the Computer Engineering department here at USC, that has about 10% chicks. Hypothesis: the ladies are more attracted to guys with real-jobs instead of lifeless drones who screw their hard drives all day. By natural instinct, women choose paths in life statistically more probable for finding a sufficient provider for their family...not to mention a guy more likely to give them an orgasm in the sack. heh heh.
Eh, i'm just playing...the real reason that chicks choose chemE over compE is because chemE is a much easier major. Hypothesis: chicks are either a) inferior b) lazy or c) crafty.
scope my Super-Sick Webpage
My major, Chemical Engineering, has about 40% chicks, as opposed to the Computer Engineering department here at USC, that has about 10% chicks. Hypothesis: the ladies are more attracted to guys with real-jobs instead of lifeless drones who screw their hard drives all day. By natural instinct, women choose paths in life statistically more probable for finding a sufficient provider for their family...not to mention a guy more likely to give them an orgasm in the sack. heh heh.
Eh, i'm just playing...the real reason that chicks choose chemE over compE is because chemE is a much easier major. Hypothesis: chicks are either a) inferior b) lazy or c) crafty. check my Super-Sick Webpage
i believe that if you took a handful of women in CS majors and asked them when they first started (seriously) using a computer it would be significantly later in life than most men.My mother owned a computer store so i was fortunate enough to use computers at the ripe old age of 5. in 1992 my father made her close it, claiming he was making enough money that it was more of a burden than anything else. we didn't get a home computer till 1995. i was 15 at the time. after 3 months, my dad limited it's usage to 1 hour a day (enough to do homework) because my younger brother and i were "obsessed" with it. apparently he was more tolerant of my brother passing his time limit than myself. it was only 6 months ago that i was able to afford my own. as for school, i went to one of the "science high schools" in NYC and they offered a CS major. eventhough i was totally interested the entire major was full of extremely arrogant, racist and sexist guys. that was the only factor in my desicion not to take that major, eventhough i'm more proficient in all aspects of computers that those jerks were.
just something to think about
My daughter was telling me of a computer lesson about cookies that she'd just been taught at school. As far as she was concerned what she'd been told was 'rubbish', but now she understood that bit in The Matrix, so it wasn't all wasted.
threadeds blog
Why do we need CS grads anyway ? IT (the stuff we actually get paid real money to do) is quite a different field from the somewhat theoretical nature of academic CS. Personally I'm a laser physicist by training, and my most highly regarded coworkers are a mix of other numerate disciplines, but far from being CS biased. If I was 17-18 these days, I hope someone would advise me to go and study almost anything other than pure CS.
Lately I have mainly been working in a web design house. The place is full of young women; all moving into this lively, exciting and commercially hot field. Some are more techy, some less so, but none need a specific CS degree to do what they do.
PS - If your name was "Borg", would you want to go anywhere near a CS geekpit ? How many Trek jokes do you think she still hasn't heard, and how many do the saddo fratboys keep thinking are new ?
Funny. I'd like to point out that at most universities they call it the Department of Computer SCIENCE, not the Department of Computer programming. Perl will be replaced someday, but automata and Turing machines will always be around, and they will always be useful in determining the limits of computation.
I think in trying to understand why this situation is the way it is people are overlooking some fundamentals. Things have always been this way with our species and what we're seeing in CS is really a symptom of something else: the nature of the human genders. History, our current civilization, and introspection reveal to me that the genders have certain preferences because of their spiritual, mental, and physical composition. Men tend to dwell on the logical plane (as hard as that is to beleive sometimes), while women tend to dwell on the emotional plane. Thus men will naturally gravitate towards scientific, industrial and technical matters while women will be drawn towards social and artistic matters. Neither is better than the other; both are necessary halves of a whole and contain part of the other (the yin/yang symbol comes to mind). Those women who've been drawn to scientific and other normally male dominated interests have been and sometimes still are discouraged. This is unfortunate; I think female input into the normally "male" fields would make them more life affirming. This suppression of female expression is, I think, based in part on the observed difference between the genders and negatively reinforces it. Women should be encouraged (but not pushed) to pursue these fields. However, in the end, even if we lived in a balanced society where people were encouraged and free to pursue what their hearts desire, I think the current male dominated fields would still be so, though the disparity might not be as great.
So, why are women not interested? You know, the more I work in this industry, the less I become interested. Anyone else find that? The hours are often long, the work is often tedious, the bosses are often exploitative idiots. The job chews up your personal life until you are often too tired to even think of going out on a Friday night for a good time. Maybe that's why women are "not interested"?
Science and especially computers feed off your brain. I've gone home some evenings feeling like my brainwaves have stopped waving. I don't think that it's entirely fair to blame the lack of women in the job on some sort of sexism - I think the job itself needs to be looked at.
The main argument I've heard is there aren't enough women in engineering because they don't have access to computers in school because the boys are "too wild", or they aren't encouraged to take an interest math or science.
At least in my experience both of these are definately false. My wife's mother is an IT director who strongly encouraged her daughter to go into computer science. My wife had no interest in computer science at all until she changed her mind in the late twenties after trying a different career. Despite very strong encouragement, a strong role model, and unlimited exposure to computer science she totally rejected the entire field. In my opinion young adults pick careers based on what interests them, and that is largely based on what they find cool or interesting. And if someone can claim to know how to mold teenage culture to favor one career over another I would be highly surprised if it actually worked.
The other assumption is that computer science favors aggressive interaction, which in turn favors men in school and in industry. In the real world, people work in teams and have to get along. Anyone who is aggressive and doesn't listen to his peers isn't a good team member and wouldn't be someone I'd want to hire or work with.
In an article posted yesterday, there was a lot of discussion about how many hours one worked at their job. I read some people working 60+ hours a week. This will be a huge generalisation (bracing for flames) but I don't know too many women who would be willing to work that type of schedule. I have not yet met a woman who COULDN'T say NO. Plus we can bring up the whole "women won't work long hours because they want to be mothers" argument. It is sad to say, but those 60+ weeks are needed to advance sometimes. Most women, let alone normal people, do not want to work the hellacious schedule or deal with the inordinatwe amount of stress associacted with this kind of work. I remember back in school, I knew a few female CS majors. By sophomore year, they bailed out to technical writing or something else, claiming the pressure was too much. I am not saying women can't do a good job. I am not saying women can't be programmers or IT people. What I am trying to say is if you look at what is required of the job, i.e. large amounts of stress, impossible deadlines, 60+ hour work weeks, this is not the most appealing profession for a young woman to consider. P.S. When I have kids (married and trying), it doesn't matter if they are boy or girl, they will have access to a computer. I have three female cousins (4,6,8 years old respectively) and they have access to computers. Two of them really like it. The other could care less.
Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
If the majority of women aren't interested, why is this a "problem" that needs a "solution"?
I know this isn't Politicaly Correct, but the facts is the facts. Like it or not, Men and Women ARE different.
If a woman wants "equality" she should get it, but if she just isn't interested in a particular area why is there this incessant need to make it a "problem" and shove it into her face?
Its great to see women/men interested in computers!! But, when we get a flood of lost puppies entering CS/CE programs because they heard "You can make a lot of money doin that!!" , Im am GLAD to see the decrease in women entering these programs. The same goes for men in my opinon. I pray for the 2001 Fernolegist shortage myself.
Its always amusing to see the boys sitting at the round table discussing why or why not women do or do not do a particular thing. Can you say clueless? I knew you could.
Other than the high pay and job availability at the present time I can't figure out why any of you think the computer field is enticing for anyone -- be they male or female. I am both female and a sys admin and if it were not for the pay and the job availability I'd leave this field in a New York minute.
Unexpected problems pop up at the worst times. If there are problems the entire non-computer population of your particular company thinks its your own personal fault. If things go well you am rarely thanked -- even if you just worked an 80 hour week to ensure that things go smoothly. You are on call 24-7. You are expected keep up with current technology and to know every thing about every operating system ever written.... I could go on for hours.
To top it all off we all seem to belong to this realm of arrogant geekdom -- its not really a friendly, fuzzy and warm inviting atmostphere. And you wonder why women aren't attracted to it?
A better question would be, why are men SO attracted to it? If you could get anyone to answer truthfully I'd be willing to bet you could find its the money, the job availability, and power issues.
For example: female firefighters should have the exact same fitness requirements as men -- raging fires are not gender sensitive. However, in an intellectual setting, teachers have to fight the gender bias that results in women with "less CS interest". It's a chicken and egg problem -- if we don't discourage critical thinking in females when they're young, they may end up choosing CS when they're older.
Gender bias research says that: teachers call on boys more often, let boys interrupt girls, encourage boys to solve problems, etc. More is here. An article about women and computers is here, and a dissenting view is here- -------
-----------------------------------------------
Women love computers... I just think they can't stand the majority of the men that fill the CS field. .. and from the previous comments I've read here, I can understand why!!
The only science worthy of note is the science of progressively improving technology and creating wealth. Perl and VB are the only valid tools for this.
Next?
I'm tired, cranky, and a little peeved off at the blatant sexism being displayed in earnest on this topic. So it seems I'm taking it out on the guy. That wasn't right.
No harm done. I wouldn't be trolling if I didn't have thick skin. The part about Dean Swift did draw a drop of blood, though, mainly because it was true. Swift is sort of the patron saint of trolls, I think
attempt to be honest. I mean, gasp, the horror of it all. As I said before, I know full well that women have the ability to focus. My mom is extremely extremely successful, much of this success is derived from her ability to focus and see things through. However, it IS a fundamentally different kind of focus. She is not by any means a nerd. She is able to at one moment, solve significant problems that her engineers at her company can't solve, while simultaneously dealing with other problems (e.g., tiffs between engineering and sales, personal problems, financial, etc.)
In short, my mom is, in my opinion, at the top of her game as an engineer and entrepreneur. She is what many women aren't, because of a great deal of SOCIAL (read: nuture) problems. I fully recognize that UNNECESSARY social problems play a large role in keeping women out of certain fields (though many women PLAY THEMSELVES into that roll, to the constant annoyance of successful women such as my mother). None of this is to say, however, that men and women are created exactly equal, except for physical attributes.
While it is true that the priorities of men also change after having a child, there is a world of difference. Men, for whatever reason, don't assume the same roles in bringing up a child as a women does. Very few men feel compelled to quit their jobs, or substancially reduce their hours for a couple year--that is a fact. You might argue much of it is social (although I think there are some chemical differences there), but that does not mean it does not play a key role on career paths. I know of a number of law firms, for instance, that have trouble retaining women--they just can't put in the kind of hours that is demanded of them, and do, what they could regard, as a proper parenting job. In talking to some of these female lawyers, I discovered that they were quite happy at the firm, they just wanted something else. Many were soon snatched up by corporations to act as corporate counsil, a job that requires fewer insane hours. I, too, know a few of these corporations, they consider themselves all too lucky to be able to hire a person that is much more qualified than any male in a similar role.
Did I say I have "proof"? Did I say that I expect everyone to swallow it whole? No. Nor can you claim that your social influences are proof either. I think that both social and chemical differences play a role, social more than chemical (atleast in non-nerdy fields, e.g., law, medicine (although many med schools have more women enrolled than men), business, etc.
Am I saying that women shouldn't enroll in programs such as engineering? No, not by a long shot. If they are happy with it, more power too them. In fact, that's exactly what my sisters are studying in college, and I support them entirely. The fact of the matter is that my mother outperformed nearly every man in her field, if my mother can do it, my sisters can do it. I think a better balance of men and women in engineering could even improve the field in general (although the means to achieve this I question sometimes) But that does not mean that I ever expect my sisters to behave the same way that thousands of young men have, through different cultures, through the decades. I don't confuse the ability to get things done, with the ability to lose sight of everything but ONE thing--in my experience, that is very much of a male attribute. Put simply, women are capable of doing the same job in engineering; it is the underlying motivations and approach that I question.
What do you expect, girls don't get intelligence listening and buying into crap like the Backstreet Boys or N'Sync or some shit like that. The womens movement is in retrograde.
I think the real reason why women don't get into comp sci is that they aren't usually given lego to play with as girls. Think about it.
Bitches need to get their ass's in the kitchen and make us some pie!
I'm a male non-traditional student (for you Brits, that's "mature student") at U Wisconsin-Superior, a small, public, mid-western university. I see many reasons that there are not as many women in CS.
1) Women are still valued more highly for their looks than their brains by men and other women. Brainy women (still, in 2000)do not get the positve feedback that pretty women get. Of course, there are pretty, brainy women, but they seem to get more attention for their looks.
2) Men seem to have more patience with programming exercises than many of the women students. In my school, we are often given projects which have no real outcome other than sorting a list of random integers in order to learn the various algorithms; many of the women students I've talked with believe this to be a waste of their time. Contrast this with a Creative Writing class where you are assigned to write a sonnet; at the end of the day, you have an actual poem that may mean something in addition to having learned a poetic form.
3) Some of the instructors and many of the students here don't believe wwoman want to learn anything "hard".
The only thing that this constant "where are the women"-type discussions on slashdot is doing is trivializing the women who ARE here. Sometimes I get so annoyed when everytime a story that asks "where are all the female geeks?" gets dozens of women essentially responding 'I'm here! I'm here!'.. only to be ignored.. and then ignored again the next week when a similar conversation comes about.. and again.. and again.. I've almost given up on posting my opinion on stories like this because I'm always ignored.
On an entirely different note.. I honestly don't think we need to push women into computer science who don't want to be there. Many men LIKE spending all their time geeking in front of a computer, but unlike myself, most women DON'T.. and if forced into a career that they really don't want to do means they will be just unhappy in the future. (or will end up quitting their job to raise their snot nosed rugrats) I believe if you poll a group of computer science majors, many of the men will get into computer science because they like computer, or they're really geeks at heart, whereas most women will get into it to make money or for some other trivial reason.. but obviously NOT because they like computers. (Take the girl in front of me in Linear Algebra.. she spends all her time dressing slutty and acting stupid.. why the heck is she in Computer Science?)
Another incredibly annoying result of trying to push more women into computer science is that the general opinion of male geeks about female computer science students goes right down the tube. More and more women are seen as "just not geeky enough", which really pisses at least this geeky person off. I've read several statements so far saying that women in CS don't know computers.. or have to take "beginners" courses, or need constant help from the teacher.. and I have to agree.. it's true. Call me selfish, or whatnot, but if I wanted to take classes with 95% women I'd major in business or marketing. I knew what I was getting into when I decided to major in computer science.. and I like it that way.
This is a favorite topic on Slashdot. Women in Comp Sci, female-related games, and percentage of female presence online - they're all related. It stems from the fundamental social issue that women have always been socialized AWAY from technology (for some reason). It has gotten steadily better, but it is still a big problem. Quotas and lower standards aren't the panacea...women aren't entering because they don't WANT to or aren't interested. They aren't interested because for 18 years they have been implanted with the idea that math, science and technology is not "for them". When we stop socializing females away from science/technology and towards other fields we will start seeing them entering science and technology more qualified and in higher numbers. It doesn't help us one bit to admit a whole bunch of female that are unqualified and uninterested in Comp Sci. They have to /want/ to, and instilling that want, or more accurately, simply refraining from inhibiting it, is a societal issue.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Why can't supposedly vary educated people understand the fact that men a women are different not just physically and biologically but also mentally. For the million or however many years it's been that modern man has been around it has typically been that men are the creators, explorers and women are the nurtures. Look at any social animal in nature and you'll see the same thing the male protects the female nurtures the young it's not just human nature it's nature. I don't mean to sound like a sexiest but that is the way it is and probably the way it will stay. This trying to change things to make something more appealing or easier for one group is stupid. I think they have forgotten what equality means. It's not having the same number of all sexes/race/religion working in the same place it's about giving every one a level playing field to work on. If women aren't interested in technology then that's their decision. It seems like there just making a issue out of this because the technology industry is a place where there is a large potential for personal gain. I don't ever remember seeing a female garbage collector how come there not shouting for more of them
I've never noticed it before but my thinking cap does sort of resemble a hockey helmet
Come on in and have a beer!
Whoa, the TV is always right. I encourage you to teach the young dude. I'm very worried about the crtitical thinking skills that young people are getting--or not. In an era when media is consolidated and journalistic stands have declined, you need to be able to determine how much BS yer getting fed regardless of the medium. I do haveta ask about the kids age: if he's a pre teen kid, chances are he doesn't got the bullshit upgrade that most teens seem to get when they hit 13. In anycase, you definitely need to foster a bit of healthy cynicism. Sorry for the OT rant.
Let me start off as saying that I am a male. Let me also say that I have been "playing" with computers since I was 10, and maybe longer that that if you count the programming of a couple of toys that I had when I was 7 (a Big Trak and a Brain Buggy).
Anyhow, why am I in this field (specifically programming, not sysadmin)?
Because I grok the machine.
Because when I get "into" it, I am really INTO it. My mind becomes one with the machine - I feel like I am half of it, and it is half of me. Times rolls by, food doesn't matter, and bodily functions are minor annoyances. Hacking at the machine from dusk to dawn, and after - I don't feel tired, I feel ALIVE.
This isn't all, though. When I am not near a computer, I tend to think: "Where is there a computer?", and then marvel at the fact that there is generally a computer somewhere near me. Maybe one that doesn't do much (like a watch or the computer in a microwave oven), but one nonetheless. The machine is ubiquitous, everywhere around us, most of the time taken for granted. I think about those who came before me, and those who will come after - and rejoice at being a part of the process.
Money? I didn't get that when I was a kid coding on my machines - it is more important today, but not a main reason I code.
Job Availability? Once again, it wasn't what drove me as a kid...
Power? Maybe a little - knowing I know how to do something most people find arcane. But it isn't something I pursue (otherwise I would be in management, and not coding).
It isn't these things - what drives me is the synergy of me and the machine, the synthesis of a different state of mind, an almost spiritual union.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I don't know abou you, but if I did not have my CS degree I would feel like a 2nd rate techie. I am a Junior and a CS major, and have had the option to switch majors to CIS (which would be worlds easier IMHO) but I would not feel "up" for the job....any tech job that is.
You go ahead and get your english major. I will be seeing you at McDonalds...
Are you having a bad day? Did you know it takes fewer mussles to pull a triger than it does to frown?
On the topic of differences between men & women, is it just my experience that women produce better UI (graphical or not) than men?
In the systems I've worked on UI's *designed* by women have been better received by users than UI designed by men. This is especially apparent when some forms have been done by women and some by men, on the same project. The female designed ones seem easy to use.
Just me - or have others experienced this?
I wasn't consideirng unqualified women. My bad.
But then there are also the unqualified men that we have to work with, too.
But I am of the opinion that not all women are unqualified, and that any effort to bring more women into the field won't and shouldn't bring in unqualified workers. The issue is how to attract women into the right fields and disciplines, and work their way through(no more, no less than a male) etc.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Why is it sexist?
Of course the only trait isn't gender. Are we assuming, or not, that women are just as qualified as men to be engineers, scientists, and technical workers?
If we are assuming this, then there is no conflict. They will rise and fall according to their ability, just like men. The only sexist thing is the belief that I value women higher than I value men. That's a selfish thing, though, in that I'm a man. That value, however, has nothing to do with skill or ability, and I would not judge the skill of a man or woman based on my preference for males or females. Thats an independent category, and one in which the women would be selected against, no different than men.
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Ahead of myself? Perhaps.
But I don't see why there is any biological influence at all in working with computers. Or physics. Or English. Or arts.
Maybe girls don't get different treatment. Is this what you imply? That girls get the same treatement as guys?
Lets assume there is no gender bias in our culture. Is that too extreme? That girls and boys don't get treated differently, and that the only difference is biological. In which case, why should there be any difference then in job skills? Since when has computers been a part of our biological makeup? Or cooking? All these skills are learned and taught and passed on through tutelage, not genetics.
I never made the assumption that men are women are biologically identical. Why is that necessary for women to go into technical fields? A difference in treatment is certainly a viable reason for a difference in behavior; it is certainly not the only reason, but I don't think I see why behavior is connected to being skilled in computing!
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
The programming staff is 3 women and 6 men, but nearly all of the project managers and html designers are women...most of whom have had some formal training in CS even if it did not end in a degree.
So lets not forget that there are lots of technical jobs that are not programming and that we should look at the percentages of women in the industy as a whole before we can make any real conclusions.
(Yes, my evidence is only anticdotal and I would like to see real numbers if anyone has them)
I agree with Anita Borg on the differences between boy and girls in elementary and high school. Boys do tend to be more aggressive, especially when it comes to computer time. This can cause young girls to lose their appeal for science as they get older because they never fully embraced it when they were younger. But when it comes to the idea of technology in general, I disagree. Technology is gender neutral. It's what we do with the technology that makes it gender relevant. A man or woman can build a motor, but how the motor works really isn't that different. What's different is whether the man uses it to race cars or the woman uses it for casual driving. Being someone who has a CS degree, I can tell you that the CS program is gender neutral. Let's face it, a binary tree is a binary tree, and nothing's going to change that! If women don't want to build binary trees, what are we suppose to do? Make them use link lists?
In the US, universities are becoming extensions of high school. However, not everyone needs a 4-year liberal education in order to discover and specialize their niche. In fact, I'll bet most people _don't_ want/need a 4-year degree.
Vocational schools are often disdained in the US. However, I believe that many people who have a strong non-research interest would be best served by vocational schools. Learn what you need, and quickly go to work on your career.
This unfortunate situation has persisted for many years. Hopefully the new economy, which is encouraging technically-oriented students to bail out of universities, will encourage the acceptance of job-specific vocational schools.
Insane people like me can stick it out in the universities for the rest of our lives, to be owned by the rich people who bailed. That's why only insane people consider a life of research.
-Paul Komarek
W.R.T. women in the CS/IT field, I'm all for it. Working with women makes for a much more interesting environment.
;)
My concern with studies like this one is that the 'wrong' people will get fired-up, and over-zealously try to correct the situation the WRONG way. Quotas come to mind.
The RIGHT way is to make the field appealing to women, and provide them with means to develop technical competency. An unfortunate fact is that the sciences are not as accessible to girls as they are to boys, during the early years of education.
After the sour experience of grade-school, most girls avoid science in HS, and tend to avoid it in college, or they get brave and go into those sciences labeled as 'soft' (psych, socio).
Hard science is fun, and it needs to be advocated better. Not only for the benefit of young girls but all children. The U.S. in particular is shooting itself in the foot by making science and math HARD to learn and HARD to like.
There's a big issue hidden in here I think. I'm a CS grad student, and easily a third of my classmates are oriental, and another quarter is eastern European (Russian and thereabout). Maybe a quarter of the students are female. Now, I have no problem with race, but I find this disproportionate number of foreigners (I'm Polish BTW). There is much prejudice in the working world directed against non-male non-whites, yet few of them seek higher degrees.
These white males are the ones who scream loudest about work-visa restrictions and foreigners taking away 'American' jobs. As if these guys wanted to pick lettuce for 12 hours a day, or hack code for $10/hr...
Bothers me to think about it, so I don't.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Yeah, he's a pre-teener. So I have a bit of hope for him in the future. Overall, he's a good kid, and learns pretty fast. I try to instill the cynicism in him, and show him why you have to question everything and everyone - to make sure you get the right information. I am hoping this sinks in.
I gave him one of my older machines, and I am working on a better machine for him. I am trying to get him net access (his mother is old fashioned, and thinks the net is going to be the end of us all. I have convinced her to let the kid have it, but she only wants it if it is free - well, we can do that now, after a fashion - my big problem is running a phone line to the box, due to the way the house was built, but I am working on that as well).
I have tried to get him interested in programming, but he can't seem to get his mind around the concept of loops yet. Every once in a while, he asks me about it - so I think the interest may be there, I just have to coax it out right...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Anita Borg has tried to influence the world by writing her article, just as I am. She also has some taint of man hate to argue that there are not enough women in technical fields and that the world is somehow unfair because of it. There must be some kind of male created barrier here! Little girls get shoved off the computer, that explains everything, she says. Right. Both her argument and goal are wrong.
Women should not be encouraged to enter demanding proffesions in equal numbers as men. Women have a much more important job, raising children, and most are beter suited to it than most men. Those women capable of other high achievments are just the women who should be reproduced. Raising kids and work are incompatible persuits. Hell, pregnancy and demanding jobs don't even mix well. But you could read about that in my other post if you follow the link in the first article.
I wonder what martha stewarts code would look like , probally look very pretty and every pointer would asserted to death, but obsolete by the time she finshed it.
-
Women are better on debugging if they are good in programming at all.
If I gave a part of code to someone else, he saw what I overlooked.
If I just tell someone about the code, I find the error just because I have to translate the [abstract] code into [human] language.
Most folks know this funny effect.
Debugging is a bit like Editing, as a lecture to find typos.
Since female earthlings see much more details than their male counterparts, they are just better in it.
Of course you are right, Venomous Louse, debugging is a subset of programming.
When I use the word ARGUEMENT, I mean "part of a discussion", not something negative or agressive.
In case that word has a different primary meaning, please someone tell me.
I'm not a US citizen, so that might cause misunderstandings I'd like to avoid.
Thanks, george./
One relevant statistic is that the percentage of girls qualifying for and accepting positions at the special NYC high schools (those with a focus on science) is declining, and has been for years. The high point was decades ago now, and the current ratio is about 37% girls (although the ratio of girls in the general school population is the usual 50% or slightly more). When asked why they won't attend these schools, girls often cite the isolation they expect to face.
Not coincidentally, statistics were most promising when the "women's liberation" movement was powerful, and began to plunge again in the late 70's. (These days, most girls or women preface any statement asserting their equality with "I'm not a feminist, but...")
But it seems I'd have to be doing some kind of "official" school research to pull this off, and since I'm not actively seeking a degree in education (and refuse to pay for any more formal education, anyway!), it ain't gonna happen. Unless some woman out there sees this and tries it? (-8
Btw, it is also still true that teachers (men and women both) call more often on boys for answers, spend more time looking at boys and speaking with them, and generally still ignore girls. (This research was reported in Science News a year or so ago.) No wonder some think girls' gangs are actually a sign of progress!
Ah shut up, whining women. Go by your own computer. If you can't take the heat , stay away from the keyboard. I guess the same thing will happen to CS as the YMCA , the women will start crying unless you let them play in your fort. Make sme sick. Do women need a cookie for both hands has well ?
WOW! Did you actually get to watch it compile? I've always wanted to see what C looks like. I hear that's what they program in Narnia. I can't believe how lucky you are!
Seriously, I took 3 years of computers courses here in Canada, complete with a video game I designed in grade 13 last semester. The catch: We started on QBasic, then worked our way up to VB. We never touched any other languages, not Java. Anyone who has used VB knows one thing: It The Freak language, the mutant that should not exist. Well, better then nothing.
Women are obviously different physically than men. Women usually can't lift as much weight, for example. That is where the biological difference ends as far as I'm concerned. If there is any more than that, I don't experience it. I am a women who has been working in this industry for 5+ years. I love coding at least as much as the men I've worked with, and frankly, I'm usually better than they are. I have always been good with math and logic. None of my programming education was formal. I have learned the necessary algorithms, C/C++, systems programming including distributed systems, etc... on my own. I work on Unix platforms and NT. In my opinion programming is too easy and boring. I don't blame women or anyone else for not going into computer science. Biotech looks much more interesting. If I were getting a degree, I would not do this. Over the years I've received plenty of insults about being a woman in this field. Some workplaces were unbearable at times. I find that I have to be better in order to hold my own sometimes, but that has worked out well for me. It's made me better, but it's been frustrating. Luckily, I've found that most people really aren't too biased. Many have never seen a woman doing what they do and have to see it for themselves.
I think you're referring to technology. Technology zips along, but this affects all scientific fields. Is a 20 year-old computer manual still relevant today? Probably not. Is one of Knuth's 20 year-old (30 years old?) volumes of The Art of Computer Programming irrelevant? Nope.
The manual is representative of technology, TAOCP of computer science. Little of what an undergrad cs major will study (not use) has changed in the last 20 years.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Since you love to generalize, why must liberals, such as yourself, put words in everyone's mouth, and generally overstate your case. That way no one can have any meaningfull discussion about anything.
I never ONCE said that women are incapable of doing engineering. Nor did I say they're just capable of attaining "decent" skills, or that consequently, they're only cut out for middle management. My mom is no middle manager. She holds multiple key patents, started up multiple multi-million dollar companies, made some excellent products, created hundreds of skilled jobs, and made a hell of a lot of money in the process. She is no light weight by any stetch of the imagination. I don't think you understand, if I could have anyone's capabilities and intelligence, it would be hers. You either don't understand this, or YOU are trying to double talk.
All I did was point to a few observations, that, I believe, are more than just social. I never said that any of these differences amount of incapability of performing the job. In fact, it would be ludicrous to believe that, given what I've told you about my mother.
You might not think my experience is sufficient, but that does not mean that I must ignore it. There is something called intuition, that any business person or scientist must rely on. You can't do a great deal in this world, if all your actions must first be based on concrete proof. You seem to realize this on some level, as you're proceeding on many similar unproven claims (e.g., social over genetic)
I'd like to just point out, that CMU CS does not use affirmative action in the classical sense; there are no quotas, there are no specific "adjustments made". The admissions office is told SPECIFICALLY not to accept anybody into CS they wouldn't find qualified otherwise. What we *have* been doing, is letting high school teachers know that Carnegie Mellon exists, that it has a decent engineering and CS programs (re CS is engineering: not the approach they take here...) and then only when it comes to the little things that push an applicant over the edge do females have a slight advantage. So that means that the SAT scores have to pass the threshold, the GPAs have to pass the threshold, the essay, etc.
And speaking as someone who's seen the different classes interact, the particular freshman class (37%) has much better social bonding than any class as a whole.
kbs
yours,
kbs
I am a female in computer science, (going to graduate this semester with a BS), and, while I was never discouraged by anyone from going into CS, I think I can understand why woman are dropping out. There is this attitude (repeated by many of you) that woman are not good in CS (or math, for that matter). People view my grades (I have a pretty decent GPA) as indications that I get help from some male friends (I don't-I am a non-traditional student and don't hang around the college much). I am not getting a lot of job offers, and it offends how many people assume I get the offers because I am a woman. However, that is not all of the reasons. For many reasons, both societal and biological, women tend to have to spend more time with family. As a mother myself, I found I had to accept a less technically enjoyable job (translation: hard), for a job that would be better for my family. In all fairness, however, that is my choice and my fault....
For a case in point, take a quick look at this Slashdot discussion -- just the subject lines, even. Is it at all surprising that women aren't attracted to technology when this is what they have to expect from the discourse? Stupid, sexist jokes; uninformed opinions about biological determinism; arguments for why women aren't good at computing. Why on earth would a women find such a field interesting when it's so hostile?
Maybe instead of arguing all these external reasons for why women are this and that, we ought to take a look in the mirror at the kind of environment we're creating.
Whoops. Well, at this point the best you can do is call me a "liberal", then dismiss my rebuttals to your specific words. One thing I'm definitely liberal about is quoting and responding specifically. You'll also note I haven't called you a bigot, reactionary boot-licker, or tried to typecast your ideas. I played with your words some, and that's unfair, but I got tired of your repeated assertion that "Me saying women aren't good at many aspects of engineering != Me saying women shouldn't GO into engineering". If anythings getting shoved in your mouth, it's your foot.
"Nor did I say they're just capable of attaining "decent" skills, or that consequently, they're only cut out for middle management."
You've said in a variety of ways women aren't as capable in many areas. Yet you claim this doesn't mean your defining what women are cut out for? Your posistion doesn't leave you middle ground to todder around in. Either women are less capable, as you claimed in a variety of ways, in which case there should be no worry over the lack of them in cs related fields. Virtually every argument you've made about the difference between the sexes has pointed out reasons why women are simply less capable in certain techinical areas. This would make sense, considering the point of this original story was explaining why there are few women in techincal fields.
"I don't think you understand, if I could have anyone's capabilities and intelligence, it would be hers. You either don't understand this, or YOU are trying to double talk."
You seem to be backpedaling in order to avoid looking like a sexist. You typecast your mother (and then generalize immensely off her) but then praise her intelligence. Same with your sisters. Same with "Well women aren't good and this and this, but I'm NOT saying they shouldn't do it!". The problem is not that you're saying exclude women outright. It's saying they're simply not suited in the first place because they're not "biologically" suited.
"I never said that any of these differences amount of incapability of performing the job"
No? ------------
"rather that many professional women start out in demanding fields, discover later in life, after graduating from grad school, law school, or what have you, that they want to raise children. This frequently requires a change of priorities...atleast for awhile...which means their ULTIMATE career paths are going to be altered."
Read: Only women are the affected parent having children. Only women want children. After that, many trash their careers. Therefore that's why you don't see them in similar careers as men, because they just don't have the time or drive to do it, they want to be mom.
"When is the last time you've seen a women lock themselves up in a room, and obsess about something to the exclusion of all else (e.g., body odor, hair, social life, etc) until they solve it, or come up empty handed?"
Read: Women can't focus over single tasks. They do not have the drive/interest/whatever to do this. Many tasks in the CS field require this kind of drive. Women don't have it, women aren't there.
"the differences between my mother and father typify the differences between the two highly skilled respective element of the sexes." "As an engineer, he was better than even my mom"
Read: My mom and dad are typical of women and men in technical fields. My father was a better engineer. Therefore, men are typically better engineers. This is why women have a hard time entering industry.
"One major difference I noticed about my father was that he was very much of the nerd or geek that I mentioned before (who will focus on something with such determination, that the rest of the world is just irrelevant). He loved his technology for the sake of technology. I can't say this about my mom."
Read: Women can't be geeks. Geeks have determination. Women do not. They really don't like technology for the sake of technology, it doesn't interest them.
"She loved technology for the sake of delivering a product...of helping people...or some greater end, other than her immediate edification. While my mom also has the ability to see any problem through, it just aint the same. There isn't that one track mind....the kind of mind which I've seen amongst many of the top scientists of today and the past. "
Read: My mom is a woman, and a mother, therefore she thinks of other's interests besides her own. She, like most women, doesn't have a one track mind. Like most women, this unfortunately means she's incapable of being a top scientist (or engineer like Dad). If not incapable, then definitely improbable and part of this is just the female genome. She may be good at other things I mentioned vaguely, but they don't lie in many techincal areas.
"In short, my mom is, in my opinion, at the top of her game as an engineer and entrepreneur"
Read: Mom is good at being a techincal manager. She is not as good as an engineer, like Dad.
". Very few men feel compelled to quit their jobs, or substancially reduce their hours for a couple year--that is a fact."
Read: Women want babies. When they have them they want to quit or substantially reduce their workload, unlike men. Thus they do not have time to devot themselves to careers (like engineering) as this requires more time than their children allow them.
"But that does not mean that I ever expect my sisters to behave the same way that thousands of young men have, through different cultures, through the decades. I don't confuse the ability to get things done, with the ability to lose sight of everything but ONE thing--in my experience, that is very much of a male attribute"
Read: I expect my sisters to do well, like mom, but not as "real" engineers, like dad. As women they lack the ability to lose themselves over one thing.
"Put simply, women are capable of doing the same job in engineering"
Read: Well, maybe capable, not obviously by all these other statements as capably as men. This may be partially social, but its certainly also partially biology.
----------------------
"You might not think my experience is sufficient, but that does not mean that I must ignore it."
Of course we all rely on our own experience to define our opinions and make judgements. However you seem to be quite myopic in considering other peoples experiences or ideas on the subject. The way you've experienced things, and the conclusions you've drawn, is the way it is, for no other reason than your "intuition". Your reality != everyones reality. Keeping this idea in mind, it really helps you open your mind.
"You can't do a great deal in this world, if all your actions must first be based on concrete proof. You seem to realize this on some level, as you're proceeding on many similar unproven claims (e.g., social over genetic)"
I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Many people base their entire lives around beliefs that are purely faith and little, if any, concrete evidence(such as say, Religion or the existence of God). Does this make them wrong? Who's to say, but it's certainly not scientific, as you have repeatedly alluded to.
"You seem to realize this on some level, as you're proceeding on many similar unproven claims (e.g., social over genetic)"
There is a wealth of evidence regarding societal influence on groups of people, and what people believed about them, and how that effected them. For America, see the last 150 years of Blacks, Women, and Native Americans in the US for a start. If you really want to argue that there's no "proof" society affected these groups in profoundly major ways, you're stretching beyond reason, and I'd guess you're smart enough to know that.
It's also quite obvious that whatever biological differences may play in peoples personality, it's absolutely dwarfed by the environment they've been brought up in. See the above groups I mentioned again. We can also safely say that virtually everyone is genetically different, and any random two people (male, female, whatever race or otherwise) are signficantly different genetically. How do genetic differences, race, gender, or otherwise play out as far as shaping personality: No one has any idea. I find it funny that you repeatedly dodged my mention of racial genetic differences -- pointing to that as defining a person is widely taboo these days. Yet defining a person behavior as "female" is still prevailent.
In the rare case of identical twins seperated at birth, it turns out if they're in wildly different enviroments, they turn out to be awfully different people (in beliefs, interests, disposistion, etc). I'd love to talk more about this, as I spent 4 years working in a genetics lab and spent plenty of time reading journals crossing over to the behavior/psychological aspects of the area, but I'm out of time.
Anyway, it's been an interesting conversation. Regards!
My initial statement(s), boiled down, was this: Although, I agree that 99% of the problems that women face are social, there are some genetic differences. To automatically blame all disproportions of men to women in any field on social causes is a bit naive. One such attribute I've noticed is the lack of female geeks. When I say geeks, I don't just mean a social outcast or a person who can "focus". I mean a person who is so utterly involved in his work that he loses sight of all else, to a fault. The kind of personality, that from 3rd grade on, they would lock themselves up in a room and lose themselves to some project, just "because".
Then you go and jump on my back, and say that this then must mean that I must think that women are lesser engineers than men. I simply never said anything to that effect--you put those words in my mouth. Then you start with your "read" games, which directly contradict many statements I've made to the contrary. For example, I said something to the effect that my mom is at the top of her game as an engineer. What part of that don't you understand? It is certainly not compatible with your "read": That women can't peform "...as capably as men". No, my mom outperformed men in virtually everything she's ever done, including engineering. The only exception to this is my father, who was unparalleled in his field. So if I had to quantify it, my dad would be #1, while my mom would be #2 in that particular field (while my mom would be #1 in many others combined), and thats out of however many thousands in the field. Traslation: Any EE school would be insane not to put her at the top of the list.
The lack of the ability to be the kind of nerd I was referring, is not equivelent to not being able to perform every bit as well as that nerd. PERIOD.
Rather than waste a great deal more time and energy on your petty "reads" and argue the obvious, I've come to the conclusion that you're just a meddlesome 3rd party. You are here to argue (rather then attempt understand, or reach a conclusion) above all else. I'd bet dollars to pesos that you're not a women, that you're white, and that you're middle class college aged (including grad school) kid...all this tends to breed a certain kind of liberalism that i've seen all too often (there's something to get your panties in an uproar)
Good bye
I think that's been made blatantly obvious.
"b) outright said that women are not capable engineers"
Well, this is the thickest part of your blind spot. You've made many statements as to what women are worse at, and why they are "not as able" to do certain things. Many of these things are related to CS/Engineering jobs. Yet you somehow feel that there's NO correlation or implication between them. You're posistion is seriously confused. You stuck your head over the ledge, but you refuse to say that means you're looking down.
"I said women are not nerds."
Which of course is ridiculous. Your "personal experience" must be one of the most enclosed bubbles on the planet.
"But I never once said that all good engineers are nerds."
Once again, you run into your strange dichotomy. Women aren't nerds. Nerdy qualities are required for many, many aspects of the CS/Engineering world. Yet once again there's no correlation! Amazing.
"One would have to question your bias even more when considering that I repeatedly stated that my mom is one of the best in her field (as an engineer)."
You heavily qualified what your mother's type of engineering was. Non-nerdy, not nuts and bolts, but some sort of more abstracted womanly sort of thing. You went on to praise that repeatedly, but the problem is in your strange, funny distinction in the first place. The fact you once again don't consider this a contradiction is just funny. Maybe what you really meant to say is "women are good as SOME types of engineers".
"You do not have a direct interest in this "
Eh? We're having a two-way conversation here. I suppose you prefer to talk without listening or having to defend your points, but hey, that's not the way these boards work. You of course are not forced to debate (or reply to) anything. In fact I'd recommend against it in your case - you're better at eroding your own case than making it.
"My experience is that most women, baring a few femi-nazis, are much cooler about my statements."
Hah - and I've had two egging me on to continue this conversation as they get such a kick out of your confused commentary. Let me give you a little tip: Women can be sexist too! Everyone carries bias - the individuals of the group included. I once heard a black man say that because data shows Asians generally do better on IQ/SAT/GRE scores than whites, and whites better than blacks, we can probably extrapolate that this flat out means something about the general intelligence of the groups, period. Amazing really. I've also heard more than one woman say the womans place is at home, taking care of her husband and children. Hell, there are many cultures around the world where its socially acceptible to physically harm your wife for doing something "wrong", and many women in the cultures support the idea. Too extreme you say? That's what I say about you.
"Likewise, many of them will even readily admit that women are not cut out for most military rolls (and others yet think, as such, should not even have some rolls which they could technically perform)...it goes beyond just the physical as well."
Hahah - oh my. The more you talk, the more grave digging you do. Certainly you're not sexist now? Or pehaps you are, but you're acceptibly sexist (because you have women who agree with your viewpoint, and thus it must be correct/okay)? Women can't handle military roles. Is this the same "male only focus thing"? Or perhaps because women lack aggressive tendencies? Perhaps women just lack the balls to kill (HAR HAR HAR). What stereotype will we identify and rest assured from your personal experience it's biological? Apparently your amount of bigotry/stereotyping is not sexist. How much further would we need to go before you considered it bigoted/sexist?
I think my cousin, a 2nd lieutenant graduated from the Air Force Academy would probably take exception to your assertion. She's probably some sort of lesbian femi-nazi (I LOVE people who use catchphrases from that wacky, hard nosed, truth-teller, Rush Limbaugh!), and uh let's see, been involved with academics, and therefore bred to liberal thinking. You know those folks in the military are all a bunch of leftist radicals.
"You, from the very beginning, boxed me in, and called me, in so many words, a sexist, a moron, you name it"
I slipped off the bandwagon towards the end as I just couldn't resist given your weak attempts at attacking me. However if you'll read my first posts, you'll notice I never attack YOU, I attack your statements or ideas. Calling your point stupid is a fundamentally different thing from calling YOU stupid. This is called mature debating, I'm sorry you couldn't make the distinction and handle it.
"I am currently in business school full time and working part time, amongst other things; I am not some little frat boy despite your assertions to the contrary."
Notice that you started the name-calling and typecasting. Once it became obvious you're incapable of staying away from it, I couldn't help but have a little fun myself. You're right though, you do sound sorta like a frat-boy, don't you?
"You likely have no experience with either, and as such have little to no respect for either, as you seem to believe the highest calling must can't be to actually CREATE anything, such as a company"
Wow. You certainly know a WHOLE lot about me, who I am, the way I think, and what's made me think that way about EVERYTHING by extrapolating from the 3-4 posts I've made in our fairly directed discussion. Problem is, you really don't have a clue beyond the very little I've told you, and your comments about my respect for creating a company/product or whatever is just hilarious. You seem to have a problem with taking one or two points (whether they've got any basis or not in the first place) and making a billion assumptions about everything else. Seems you took the same route to explaining me as you did to explaining women. I think we've got a trend here, no?
"With you, I evidently hit the nail right on the the head. The fact that you are a grad student, and likely leaning towards academia speaks volumes. That is...as long as you wish to play the name calling game."
Actually no, you didn't hit the nail on the head. I'm not a grad student, I'm not leaning toward academia. I've never said that, you just flat made it all up. I could go into great detail about my personal history, but as I already mentioned, it's not relevant to anything said here. I can just see it -- "Oh you mean you went to school X?! That place is a socialist femi-nazi breeding ground! Err wait, Bob Roberts university... hold on...". You seem really tied up in trying to dimiss my "background" rather than attacking my points.
Anyway, this has been fun, and you've provided some entertainment for me and a few friends who keep track of what I post here on occasion. I originally thought we may both become more mutally informed, but the entertainment will do. And the value of the entertainment has worn thin, and I am done!
Regards