Soap Opera for Luring Women to Tech is a Flop

Billosaur writes "The Register has an article by Mark Ballard on attempts to lure more women into the area of technology by a '...TV soap that depicts them making a success of careers traditionally pursued by men.' The Public Awareness of Science and Engineering (PAWS) Drama Fund has been attempting to develop a soap opera called 'Happy Valley' to encourage girls to pursue careers in science and technology by giving them successful role models to follow. The idea is tanking, however, as no one is willing to pick up the show. To quote the show's writer, Tony McHale: 'People say, why don't you do a science soap. My reply is that no-one will commission it, because it's boring.'"

Comments

WHY?

[erroneus]

Why do we want women in tech? I'm not saying I'm against women in tech, I just wonder why, if they don't want to do it, we should want them to want it? Someone enlighten me? I don't hear a lot of clamoring over men in educational fields or nursing or anything else that's largely female dominated. Are we pushing for "equality" without regard for whether or not they WANT to do this?

Re:WHY?

[springbox]

Why do we want women in tech? I'm not saying I'm against women in tech, I just wonder why, if they don't want to do it, we should want them to want it?

You generally want women in science for the same reason you would want diversity in any field. It brings new perspectives and ideas to science because women usually lead lives that are a bit different from that of men.

There are also a few ideas as to why there are low numbers of women in science:
1.) Because the people already established in these fields (men) don't want them there and are doing things to make sure they don't succeed. (Like not giving referalls for jobs, not being very helpful when someone asks for help, etc.) Science is male dominated.
2.) Because women choose not to enter a scientific field.

Are we pushing for "equality" without regard for whether or not they WANT to do this?

From my perspective, today it's more likely that the individual chocies of women are playing a greater factor than if people are trying to push them out. There doesn't appear to be any siginficant roadblocks in their way that would prevent them from going further in a scientific career today than in the past. So I would agree with that, and it does piss me off quite a bit when I hear about trying to get "women into science." The forced equality idea is crap especially if it's the case that the low numbers of women might actually be because of personal choice.

Of course.... You also have to consider other factors that are probably influencing women to stay away from science such as -- our culture. If you notice the images and ideas that both men and women are bombarded with on a daily basis, then it becomes clear as to how people start to get ideas about what they're "supposed" to be doing with their lives. Some examples: Men and boys are often portrayed as tough, rugged individuals who should be outside playing games and exploring the world. Women and girls are often portrayed as soft, quiet individuals who are delicate and excell at domestic life (staying inside) and looking beautiful. Horray for stereotypes!

Get my point? The whole pushing for equality thing is crap when if you consider that if you get rid of things like these completely stupid stereotypes that the problem of low numbers of women in science would probably fix itself.

Mount Everest

[wombatmobile]

To direct good women towards our form of goodness is a challenge far greater than all of science.

Good women prefer apes.

Something everybody's been missing

[techno-vampire]

There's a reason this idea tanked that nobody's commented on as yet: no villans. As the article points out, soap operas thrive on constant conflict and some of the most memorable characters over the years have been vilans. If you ask the average person to name a character from Dallas, the odds are that the first name mentioned is JR.

Re:Restoring balance, perhaps?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

> Because there's reason to believe that women are pushed out of tech.

Yes. See the book "Unlocking the Clubhouse", about a longitudinal study of CMU CS undergrads.

Over and over, the women reported that when they were girls the family PC wound up in their brother's room and they never got to tinker with it however much they wanted to.

Undergrads enthusiastic about computers all too often transferred to other majors because they thought they were expected to emulate the MIT hacker culture in order to succeed. They were all high achievers who expected to give up parties and free time in exchange for an education, but they weren't willing to give up showers. Maybe if there were more figures like Emma Peel in popular culture they would have realized that you can both take care of yourself and gain skill.

At the risk of being politically incorrect, the book did mention that women tended to take interest in useful applications of technology rather than burrowing into it for its own sake. Where a man might write a thesis about register allocation in compilers, a woman would more likely want to invent something like Logo.