Slashdot Mirror
Study Reveals What Women Want From IT Jobs
amigoro writes "Ever wonder why there are so few women in the IT workplace? It turns out that the typical recruiters sales pitch, which emphasizing job promotion and security, acts to keep women out of the information technology jobs. While about 30 percent indicated they valued careers that afforded them opportunities to perfect skills in technical areas, others said they wanted careers with managerial opportunities. In addition, there was little overlap among the women who reported that managers give up technical skills to develop management skills."
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
what women don't want from IT jobs is being forced to hang out with all those nerd all day long. I'll post my study on this thesis tomorrow, I promise.
...others said they wanted careers with managerial opportunities. So, in other words, they don't want to work in IT.Can we see some pics?
Seriously though, did that line make sense to anyone else?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, what they want is control NOW ?
While the rest of us toil to perfect our skills and move up the ladder, they want to be on top?
Damn, next they will want the damned TV remote, too.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
This survey is 100% accurate, because they interviewed all 29 females currently working in IT jobs.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Why do we care why women do or do not go into IT? I don't mean this as a flame, I'm just curious, because all the tools are there for women that are there for men. Computers cost as much for a woman as they do for a man, google searches work as well for women as for men, and O'Reilly books are as easily opened by women as by men. Why separate these studies on the lines of gender?
Maybe I do not understand the reasoning or am taking it emotionally,
but I think it's a little unfair to have managers who have little or no experience in the respective field.
It's much easier to respect a manager who knows her stuff and understands the work well rather than a fresh-out-of-college MBA.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Unlike men, who apparently only have a single value and motivation for choosing their career.
Really, I don't get the whole article. They claim there's not many women in IT because recruiters tout the chances for promotion and job security. I have my doubts that anyone, male or female, goes "Man, this job has security and I likely won't be looking for work in 3 months? Well the hell with that. I don't want this job." As to the chances for promotion, does that not fit right in line with the women interviewed and quoted who say they want to move up into IT management?
And then of course there is a question that I always have. If there were few women in IT because they were being told they are too stupid to understand computer or something, I get how that would be a problem. If there's not many women in IT because the type of work and the rewards that IT jobs typically offer are not what many women want, though, then what's the big deal?
What on earth does In addition, there was little overlap among the women who reported that managers give up technical skills to develop management skills mean?
Me.
Thank you ladies, I'll be here all week!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And there's your RDI of misogyny, gentlemen...
Don't get so snippy just because he forgot to enumerate making a delicious dinner and birthing babies.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Who cares?!
Women should do what men do. When a man wants a job, he works and qualifies for it. He does what is expected by the employer. And if it doesn't work out, he does something else.
I don't think it's too much to expect women to play by the expectations of business people. You can twist and spin things any way you like, but the bottom line is that what we are talking about is business changing to meet the expectations of a specific subset of employable people. It just doesn't work quite that way. We're not talking about "challenged" [disabled] people unless you would like to reclassify women as being challenged or disabled in some way. What we're talking about is that somewhere between 45% and 55% of the general employable population who are making a decision about whether or not they want a job based on the criteria and expectations of employers for any given position... in IT or otherwise.
I think it's lovely that women want extras and allowances from their workplace. And hell yes, if an employer WANTS to provide those things then great! There's a match and life goes on happily ever after. I want extras and allowances too! I don't often get them, but that's not enough for me to not work for a living. But what are we talking about? Employers being compelled to provide for women as if they were some "special needs" group? To me, "special needs" people are mentally challenged, sensory challenged or mobility challenged people. If women by virtue of their gender can qualify under one of those categories, then they should probably be afforded special treatment. If not, then why are we always talking about this?!
Why aren't we talking about why there aren't more men doing jobs that are generally populated by women?
I hold there is an idea best identified as "different but equal." We shouldn't be concerned whether or not women want to be involved in a certain profession if that is their choice. If they want it, they will do what other people who want it do. If they would rather not do what it takes, then they shouldn't do the job... and that's largely why they don't I'm guessing.
Would *I* like to see more women in IT? **YES** I like smart women who can appreciate the things I appreciate. That's just about every geek's desire. It's rare, it's a pity, but it's life.
Is there any evidence that diversity in the workplace has any tangible benefit to productivity, the bottom line, quality, or employee happiness? I would think that having a group of employees working together who have similar backgrounds, cultures, ideas, and styles would work better together than a diverse group - leading to higher productivity, higher employee happiness, better communication, and an overall positive effect on the bottom line.
One will often hear the argument that diversity brings different ideas and approaches to the table. This may be the case in some fields, and may have a positive impact in some fields. I suspect that IT is not one of those fields. Somebody is not likely to have a different and helpful perspective on any particular technical problem because they have different skin color, a different gender, or a different culture.
Before you call me racist, consider what I am suggesting: that a group of old nerdy white East-coast Slashdotters and a group of young liberal social Latino SoCal women will _both_ outperform a "diverse" group. I am not discussing, nor presently concerned with, the relative productivity of the first two groups.
It would be an interesting problem if it was shown that diversity actually hinders performance in certain fields. A corporation's policy of encouraging diversity would be in direct opposition to its responsibility to its shareholders.
Conduct a study that contradicts my hypothesis, I and will gladly admit to being wrong.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
When I interview people for very technical programming jobs and the interviewee focuses too much on managerial opportunities it's definitely a red flag. A simple question about moving up the ladder is fine, of course. But if the intent is only to work up to management that's usually the sign of someone who's not going to enjoy the programming, and therefore not be very good at it.
Developers: We can use your help.
If you're in technology for the money, there would seem to be easier ways ( marketing, stock trader/finance ). Perhaps, if this is the motivation, a different path might be better?
However, this ( also from TFA ) seems to be spot-on:
So, if you're a bitter control freak ( All programers and DBAs, raise your hands. Yes, you too. Mine is up as well.) welcome home.
What's interesting from TFA is 18 of 92 respondants quoted the first motivation, while 28 quoted the second. What, did the other 46 pick "other"?
A Human Right
I'm not misogynistic, I hate whiny bitches of both sexes.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
From the Article::
"My parents said we are [only] paying for four years of school and I could
not become a lawyer in four years", 48 year-old CIO said. " I just said
okay, well I want to make a lot of money and so what is the next best
thing? And I did the research and the computing industry was the next big
booming thing"
My first thought:
I have noted throughout my career that the worst IT people are those who are in it for the money or treat it as just a job.
Those managers and co-workers who have a true passion... those who live and breathe for technology: they're the ones that actually get stuff done.
The Digital Sorceress
According to Ace of Base,
All that she wants
Is another baby
She's gone tomorrow, boy.
So I don't know what IT can really offer women.
More Twoson than Cupertino
The problem is not what the recruiters are pitching, it is the recruiters themselves. In most if not all IT-centric organizations that I have worked in, recruiters are young, good looking woman. This is entirely intentional, as a means to attract the young, generally not so good looking geek guys. Often the HR department of a Software company is the only department with a signficant number of females. Perhaps a few young hot guys in HR would help attract more women to IT.
The article itself is crap, really. It doesn't seem to address anything well or sensibly, as other commenters have noted. The real problem with being a woman in IT? Shows in the comment threads to this post.
I've worked IT jobs and I've worked education jobs and I've worked retail and that whole collection of jobs that someone works getting to where one needs to be, and even as recently as, oh, two weeks ago, showing up in response to something IT-related with the audacity of having been born and continuing to be an actual female gets raised eyebrows, snickers, and derisive comments. Now, I'm all for mocking mercilessly those who deserve it, but purely being female is not grounds for deserving it.
10. Women do not like to work 80 hours a week.
09. Women expect to be promoted and IT people do not get promoted.
08. Women expect benefits and maturity leave which is hard to do when on call 24/7/365
07. Women Like having family time, not getting called and having to run because the the company sees the server as more important than their kids.
06. Women know that guys NEVER listen when they give instructions, so telling some one how to fix a computer is pointless.
05. Most women meet their husbands at work, and the IT department is not as good as being an executive assistant.
04. Women like to have others to talk to and geeks only drool when they are around.
03. Women expect to be treated with respect and we all know that IT is never treated with respect.
02. Women like taking baths and showers and can not stand being around people who do not.
And the number one reason is
01. Women never let guys know how smart they are, this would put them at a disadvantage when arguing.
My mother raise seven kids and has watched 13 grandkids grow up. Her observation is this (and it hold true for IT) When two brothers get in a fight they punch each other and are playing nice in half an hour. When two Sisters get into a fight they never really have it out and just pick at each other for days! And as with anything there will be exceptions but on the macro I have watched my nieces and nephews and it is, by and large, true. I have worked in environments that are 90% female and some that are 90% male and the amount of back stabbing that goes on in a female environment is, in my completely unscientific experience, far greater. Would I hire a woman in IT? In a second because I am all about the person not the class but I wont tolerate for a second games, I have a deeper tolerance for two people yelling at each other during a meeting than quietly stewing so they can talk about it with other later. Political Correctness is a joke its not about thin skin its about manipulation to accomplish social ends..
The IT russian women were spying the connections of the boys seeing porn movies.
boy-with-fear: i'm seeing the Lolita movie.
IT women1: come in girl, watch!, this boy 13-year old is seeing the most PORNest movie of the world!
IT women2: hahaha!
IT women1: hahaha!
IT women2: fuck him! hahaha!
It was originally part of Teen Talk Barbie in 1992. From the Barbie Wiki (so you know it's true!) In 1992 Mattel released Teen Talk Barbie, which spoke a number of phrases including "Will we ever have enough clothes?", "I love shopping!", and "Wanna have a pizza party?" Each doll was programmed to say four out of 270 possible phrases, so that no two dolls were likely to be the same. One of these 270 phrases was "Math class is tough!"
If anyone needs me, I'll be in the Angry Dome.
They want to work here. They just want to be the Chief and not the Indian. Of course, in most places it is very competitive to become either lead or manager. So if they do not want to put in their time, it is not surprising that they are leaving for different jobs or family life.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I've been working overseas in the Middle East and Asia and my IT workforce have been pretty much evenly divided by gender. Perhaps non-western women view IT as an unusual opportunity to gain entre to the marketplace and work with men as peers. Why it's not appealing to western women is not clear in the article although I must say not much of anything is clear in the article.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
For starters, that is half of the ppl who use computers. Secondly, it offers new insight on how to do things different. I have no issue with trying to bring in more ppl esp. if it takes just a bit of work. The problem comes in, when you have a group who is basically saying that they do not wish to do the real work, but want to manage. I already have enough CIS type managers who I have had to explain WHY a hash table is of use or why their bubble sort approach will not work, and they still try to push their ideas.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Warning! Dangerous generalizations lie ahead!
Unlike men, who apparently only have a single value and motivation for choosing their career.
While that's not quite true, it's far more accurate when describing a man than a woman. Socially, men are judged and measured by their occupation and potential as a provider. If a man works a laid-back, 25 hour a week part-time job because his spouse allows him to do so, he's a lazy bum; for a woman, it's a perfectly acceptable decision as far as society is concerned (although how an individual woman feels about it is up to her).
Far and above all other standards, men want a decent salary and job security, and they're willing to put up with a lot of crap to get it. According to Department of Labor statistics, for example, 90% of on-the-job deaths are men, and men work more hours both in fullt-ime and part-time jobs than women; Men will take the dangerous, filthy, and more time-intensive jobs because of the extra pay associated with them.
Women certainly value good pay and stability, and this study isn't questioning that. Rather, it is saying that opening a book and saying, "Look ladies, we have good pay and stability" isn't the deal maker that it is for men. Socially, women can afford (more than men) to demand additional perks from a job. We're all familiar with the list: flexible hours, jobs that focus more on interpersonal communication, etc. Again, a total generalization but true when looked at as a total generalization.
In essence: if you are an HR manager, part of your job is to bring in diverse employees. The reasons for that are certainly debatable, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be as big of a deal as some make it out to be. But if you are an HR manager, and if you are attempting to recruit more women, you should probably rethink your sales pitch.
IT and nannies basically do the same job. They clean up crap left behind by irrational people. Nannies have the advantage of size over their tormenters.
Because we live in a politically correct world where every disparity is a racist and/or sexist and not just because people are different.
I just came back from maturity leave. I no longer talk about 80's cartoons or Batman comics. Damn maturity.
I am on the road crew. This is my stop sign.
This whole pandering idea is ironic because only nerds have low enough self-esteem to care MORE about what women want as a gender, than they care about what men want. It's about PEOPLE, not gender. Kissing up to women is gonna get you friended, not laid. Who gives a shit what women as a whole want? Most of them are jackall stupid and egocentric, just like the average man. I care what individual beacons, individual people of worth want. People talk about appreciating diversity, but then they cram the differences and distinctions down your throat so damn much, you begin to resent the beneficiary of the damn cramming.
I'm glad you quoted "study" because it sure doesn't seem like it to me.
I don't see why 'equality' has to equate with 'equal everything'. If there are few women in IT, could it be that it doesn't interest women in general? Wouldn't true equality dictate that we all have the equal chance to obtain these positions, not that we have to have equal representation in those positions? Why are few men in hairdressing? Because in all honesty, it probably doesn't interest men, in general, enough to require any kind of schooling. Hairdressing schools, however, do not explicitly or implicitly coerce men to not take part. Frankly, IT is a unforgiving, boring, mind-challenging but body-destructive position that is quite well suited for the under-social lone male, just as Marketing is an unforgiving, thick-skinned, truth-challenged and outward-appearance focussed position well-suited for the toned hardbodies of blonde airheads.
Instead of trying to attract women to IT, try attracting IT to women; they'll naturally gravitate to those things that interest them. As TFA mentions in one of its cases, money and power can be very powerful motivators.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
You're full of shit. I work in state government and we have complete autonomy to build whatever solutions we feel are appropriate. Last year I set up two Oracle application servers for internal agency use, a public website, two large databases, a testing database, and an upgraded software set for all our employees. All I had to get was my boss' permission -- which he gave via email.
The public-facing website, for example, included single sign on, an Oracle Portal, and a complete port of literally hundreds of web pages, forms, and reports from our old website, and a coworker (female) and I got it done in a couple of weeks, WITHOUT consultants.
I know you corporate types just HATE us civil servants, but you're full of shit on this one, pal.
NO CARRIER
Plus, three the four professional organizations she claims on her CV are sexist, discriminatory and exclusionary - yet if anybody ever suggested to her that there should be an organization for "Men in the Sciences and Engineering" what do you suppose her reaction would be?
This is nothing more than yet another sexist, feminist ivory tower denizen who believes that advancement at the expense of others is a noble pursuit. Some of the best IT workers I've ever known were women and some of the worst were men - and I, like just about everybody else, really don't care who does the work so long as the work gets done. Sex should have absolutely ~zero~ consideration in IT hiring practices. Hire the best person for the job and get rid of that person if their work-life balance is always tipped towards life at the expense of work.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
direction.
What do women want in IT jobs? The same as everyone else: An opportunity to pursue whatever goals they have through the job. If, on average, they have different goals, the jobs they take will look something different.
My grandmother introduced me to computers when I was 5 (back in 1981). She programmed her physics models in Fortran and ran them on big mainframes and not quite so big computers (still huge by our standards today), and was a pioneer in her field of astrophysics. She had a lot in common with many women in IT today and felt that it was a mistake to focus on bringing more women into the field when we should be focusing on more fundamnetal goals instead.
The basic issue is: in IT as in astrophysics, you are only really good at your field if you are borderline (or more) obsessive-compulsive. You can't just work in the field-- you have to live and breathe the field most of your waking hours nearly every day. It is a lifestyle more than a career. And it is found in mathematics, physics, etc (all fields dominated by men). Indeed this may say more about balance in life (and a gender gap in that area), and an ability to avoid letting one thing overwhelm the rest than it may say about aptitude in the field per se. Think about all the jokes about Slashdotters and girlfriends (or engineers and girlfriends, for that matter) and ask how many women want to be in fields where such jokes are made as at least representing some version of the reality of those who work in them.
My suggested solution is to stop thinking about what we can do to lure women into jobs that they don't want and instead focus on architectures of participation. The goal should not be "why don't you want this job" but instead "what do *you* want to do? How do you want to participate?" THis requires a fundamental shift of a company away from top-down management into something more organic or community oriented.
Think of it this way (for the men out here): If you were a registered nurse and everyone always asked you, "Why don't more men go into nursing?" would that be helpful or would it dissuade you from promoting others going into the field? Wouldn't it be better if we focused on redefining the field such that it could be more inclusive of people with diverse goals so that more people could contribute what they could?
We are also going to have to admit at some point that gender roles are going to eventually play into peoples' career choices and that some fields are going to be dominated by people from one gender or the other. This is OK and healthy by itself and without other factors, not worth worrying about.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Or am I the only one with that problem? It's really annoying to be frequently reminded that people need to be convinced that you can do what you spend your life doing. No one is surprised when I make good cookies or get a small child to stop crying! Why must they be shocked when I do good math?
The closely related phenomena is that people feel the need to tell me I'm good at this stuff. It's as if they expect me not to realize I'm good at it, since it was such a shock to them. I swear it's as if they caught their pet gerbil building a rocket, completely unthinkable but kind of cool.
I think I understand what you're getting at. The women are sick of the "trying to react non-stereotypically" when they break stale stigmas that are sadly still present.
If so, thats a good point. In highschool, I was the only person in my graduating class that took more math classes than were offered at the school. (No, I did not graduate valedictorian or fit in any stereotype from The Breakfast Club.) We just had no Calculus, in fact, we had no AP classes. My senior year I didn't feel like taking "Baking Deserts III" (don't laugh, it was a real class) and fought the "football is all that matters" public school system to let me take my two empty slots to go off-campus to the local university and take a Calc I course, instead of being an office aide and learning to bake pie.
When I did this, a women from the university used me as a research subject in her psychology thesis entitled "Women Can Conquer Math Phobia". She interviewed me for hours asking me how I got over my fear of math and science, etc... Then she showed me a bunch of data about how women are born with brains that are physically different and have to overcome hurdles to understand math. My mom is an ardent feminist, both parents are liberal, open-minded archeaologists that told me I could do whatever I wanted to do with education despite gender. Before I met this woman who told me about "math phobia" I guess I never even thought about gender applying to how I studied. I blew her off because one of the best teachers I ever had was my high school math teacher who was an older lady that didn't take any crap from anyone and taught math like no one's business.
In college, to help buy groceries, I tutored math. I don't recall having a significant number of guys who hated math and whined about Calculus anymore than did females.
Yet I was sick of the "Oh wow, its a chick that can code in C and she compiles her own Linux kernels too!" in the senior/grad Math/CS classes. The first time it was kinda flattering, then it got condescending fast. It was like I was performing for an audience at a circus.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos