Slashdot Mirror
Women Dropping Out of IT
Women's eNews has an interesting look at women in tech, with numbers showing that women are bailing out of the IT field at a rapid pace. "Technology jobs are predicted to grow at a faster rate than all other jobs in the professional sector, up to 22% over the next decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Compensation is also good. In 2008, women in tech made an average salary of $70,370. ... But women's stake in that rosy outlook is questionable. For starters, men's pay during the same time period was $80,357. A study by the National Center for Women and Information Technology ... also finds that women are leaving computer careers in staggering numbers. 'Fifty-six percent of women in technology companies leave their organizations at the mid-level point, 10-20 years in their careers,' said Catherine Ashcraft, the senior research scientist who authored the report. In 2008, women held only 25% of all professional IT-related jobs, down from 36% in 1991, according to the group's report, 'Women in IT: The Facts.'"
A common theme with woman sysadmin that have left the field is that they are tired of the environment. Tired of the macho attitudes. Tired of the put-downs. Tired of having to prove that they are tough enough to be part of the group.
Not quite sexual harassment, but alpha geek males who have something to prove and not enough social skills.
And it is not that they can't compete in this environment. It is more that they get tired of same old sh*t over and over again. They move out of the field into a more supportive environment.
I wish us guys would get our heads out of our backsides. I enjoy working with women. They bring a gentler feel to the group. But I am sure I will get flamed saying that IT is not sexist, that there is no problem and women need to get a thicker skin. And that my friends is exactly the problem.
In 2008, women in tech made an average salary of $70,370...men's pay during the same time period was $80,357.... Fifty-six percent of women in technology companies leave their organizations at the mid-level point, 10-20 years in their careers
It's cool and trendy these days to make women look good even while they are making themselves look bad. Speaking in purely financial terms, they are really screwing themselves over by leaving at the mid-level point. You need experience and maybe some seniority to earn the real money in this field, since at the lower level jobs you are easy enough to replace.
Maybe women make less money because they are less serious about this career path. That's OK and not a bad thing. They are choosing what's important to them and they should be free to do that. All of that is fine, until some well-meaning but thoroughly misguided jackass writes a summary making it sound like these poor innocent women are being financially abused and taken advantage of by those big evil savage men. That whole "damsel in distress" thing is far too easy to play up and gets lots of attention every time, even when the damsel herself is not the one doing it. Just look at the approval of this sexist post because it portrays women as smarter and more sophisticated than men even though the same people would find reverse sexism repugnant like the hypocrites they are. If that's really their IT culture then they're working for some bad companies. Anyway, that's how powerful that "knight in shining armor" thing can be whenever the "damsel in distress" card is played.
The other thing that needs to be accounted for is the options women have that men don't. Women see having a family or having a career as a choice. They can do one, the other, or both. Men don't get to view that as a choice. For men, they must have a career, period. If they want to also be a father, they do it after they come home from the office. Just leaving the working world mid-level through your career is not an option for men unless they win the lottery or want to go on welfare. Of course this is going to result in a pay discrepency. Really at around $10k for this industry, I'm amazed it's as low as it is.
Bottom line, I have known women who were very serious about their careers. They were good at what they did and well respected. They did as well as the men and tended to do a little better. This might be because some of them had the perception that they had to outperform men to be respected, a notion that is really no longer the case because of political correctness. It might also be because management looks more "diverse" and "inclusive" and non-discriminatory when they preferentially promote women and give them raises. Either way they worked like men, they took their jobs seriously like men, and they put in overtime hours like men. Coincidentally they were paid like men and promoted like men.
The main reason for this might be that a lot of IT seem to be specializing their people on narrow professions. There's less need for women, who are excellent multitaskers.
And that isn't a sexist comment. I've seen quite a few women work 5-10 years in IT, get to about age 30 and then start having kids, after which point they leave to become a stay at home mom or scale back to part time hours. And of the women that do stay full time after having a few kids, they tend to really relegate computers to something they do no more than eight hours a day, and then that's it. Based on my observations (and this may be a stereotype, but I think it's true), the cause of this is that their husbands do WAY less of the childrearing work than the women. So they don't have the time to put in extra hours studying for certifications or trying to gte extra education. Obviously, that's not the case with every woman, but I've seen it happen a lot.
I think these factors are probably pretty good explanations for the statistics we all see. The lower pay on average is probably because the women are younger and less experienced on average as a work force (since a lot of women do leave to be moms instead of conituing on at about age 30), and they are more likely to work part time, which also reduces pay. And with less time available to study, they may be less likely to advance into the higher paying jobs, further increasing the salary gap. I don't think there's any blatant discrimination going on... I just think it's the reality of which gender is most affected by children during the mid-career period.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
What you're reflecting here is a story that's very common: When men are faced with the choice of a lower-paying but more satisfying career versus a higher-paying but unpleasant career, they tend towards the higher pay. Women faced with the same choice tend towards the greater personal satisfaction.
That's why you'll find more men doing jobs that are really unpleasant but well-paid (relative to their education level), such as mining, logging, or firefighting, and more women doing jobs that are often lower paid but very personally satisfying, such as nursing, cooking, and teaching.
Now, what's interesting is that a career in IT ought to fall into the low-risk personally-rewarding camp (the physical risks are minimal, and there's a lot of joy in building things), but instead falls into the higher-pay less-reward camp due to the way IT employees are treated.
I am officially gone from
I hired at least 300 people into IT and technology related jobs over 3 decades. About 98% of the men negotiated a higher salary with me while the remaining 2% had taken another job as of when I made an offer. Absolutely none of the women I offered jobs to ever negotiated the salary. The vast majority took the job with the offered salary and the rest just said "no, thank you!".
When I've mentioned this in a group the women often say that its true, that they've rarely negotiated a salary while the men look at them like they have 14 heads.
1. I recently taught an upper-level undergraduate math course with an exceptionally bright female math major and an above-average male math major. For a while, they both did less work than they ought to have (and knew it -- they both had advanced Senioritis); but in the end, the male kicked in to a higher gear and earned a high B. The female did some triage just before the end and earned a low B. This, and similar situations, has made me wonder if females by-and-large react differently to work-related stress than males, i.e., the male will allow the pressure to motivate him, while the female will attempt to escape. If this is true (and I freely admit it may not be), the opposite may occur domestically. Personally, I'd rather spend a 12-hour day "at the office" than spend eight cooking, washing, cleaning, child wrangling, etc.
2. My wife worked at a company that was, indeed, sexist. There were multiple instances of this, although it was mostly irritating rather than soul-destroying. At one point when we were discussing whether she should move on, I asked what she wanted. "To be treated as one guy treats another", she replied. I responded, "Machiavelli wrote a book on how guys should treat each other 'in the workplace'. Is that really what you want?" That turned the lightbulb on. In the end, she made the correct call and left, but she was no longer suffering from the effects of wearing rose-tinted glasses. I would not be surprised (although, again, I could be flat out wrong about this) if one reason for what's being reported in TFA is that women just don't enjoy working in a social setting where male rules of interaction dominate. I can't say that I blame them at times. But the male perspective has its advantages -- I've worked with female professors who are unable to distinguish between students who should go forward and students who should be encouraged to change their major. This is especially an issue when a bad student is an elementary education major.
Has anyone else had similar experiences?
Fifty-six percent of women in technology companies leave their organizations at the mid-level point, 10-20 years in their careers
At Google, you're old and gray at 40. [June 22]
It is something the geek has been known to give a positive spin:
3. Microsoft's senior leadership is middle-aging. Older folks with families and kids don't have the same priorities as younger employees -- and they're not as hungry workaholics.
The average Microsoft employee is 38 years old, according to the company's self-published corporate data. Only 15.9 percent of employees are under 30. By comparison, Google employees' average age is somewhere under 30. The company doesn't publicly release average age, presumably because of an age-discrimination lawsuit. According to the last publicly available data, less than 2 percent of Googlers were over 40. For Microsoft: 40.7 percent.
Most employees are young, fresh from college and have fewer family obligations and other distractions from work. The corporate culture encourages employees to work long hours and provides services that support the work ethic. Googlers can quickly advance up the management chain, and they can look forward to healthy compensation-for-results rewards.
The most innovative thinkers are at the top of the decision-making tree rather than being at the bottom (under much older managers). Five reasons why Microsoft can't compete (and Steve Ballmer isn't one of them) [June 22]
Sorry, if you were really good at your job you would have risen to the top. And by good at your job, I mean passionate about technology. Doing it on your own time, doing it at work, etc... That's what people don't get. You take your biggest nerds, and typically they're pretty one dimensional. They are nerdy, geeky dweebs but they're very good at technology because they live it. Most women don't live it, it's a job. If it's just a job you're not going to be as good at it as someone who is borderline obsessive about it.
On the other hand, probably you live a more rich life than those uber-nerds who didn't listen to your low level babbling about barely understood technologies, so take solace in that.
Woman's first step is take the classes perhaps in high school? Do the teachers stop women from doing that? Not likely. Next step might be post-secondary if you have the grades and money. Do the colleges/universities say "You're a woman you cant go in IT!" ? Not likely. Next step might be industry certifications. Does prometric/comptia/microsoft say "NO you're a woman you cant" ? Not likely. Still nothing in their way. Do employers discriminate? Not likely. So really there's nothing stopping them from going into IT. It must be either lack of interest or lack of incentives. Lack of interest is never going to be fixed. Incentives are possible; but doesnt mean you lose women over it... unless other fields are giving women incentives and that's where the women are going. Which is exactly what's happening. My city's university offers free tuition PLUS addition $1000 to women who take engineering. Why in the world would women turn that down?
Haha. You got modded troll for posting something that is essentially true.
People don't like reality, they like fantasy land. Hence religion on the Right, and the premise that we all have the same abilities and skills on the Left.
"But there's a nice unexamined assumption in your post: Why the fuck aren't the men taking parental leave or caring for the children?"
Well, some of us are. At my current position at least 3 top male engineers have taken time off to care for their wives and newborn children.
This is well regarded and considered a given for women, but there is still palpable prejudice against men doing the same.
In my particular case, I even got a direct ridiculing, sneering comment from a female co-worker,
along the lines of "you must be the next winner of the most dedicated father of the year award".
This kind of sexism against men, specially in highly technical disciplines goes often "unnoticed" by the same
journalists who relentlessly lament how "poorly" women fare in the workplace.
I like my manager and supervisors, but don't really like the environment. I stick around for three reasons:
1. It's a paycheck. These days, this can be hard to find.
2. I enjoy the practice and insight I get dealing with these problems.
3. I'm actually doing something useful. I couldn't tolerate "helping" people buy a printer, for instance.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Well said. It's just shit. I love computers, I love writing code, I love the hardware, the software, almost everything. Except the culture around it. It's so bad that it outweighs every one of those good points. I wouldn't go so far as to say the state of the industry destoryed my life up to about this point, but it's come close. Almost everything bad in it I can trace back to some aspect of it. Whether it's the expected forced overtime or the crappy to non-existent medical.
Everything will be taken away from you.
My dad had me working on cars before I was old enough to drive, and I've never stopped working on them, so 20-some years later, I can fix just about anything. When I have to take a car in for work, I'm a wonderful customer. "I need this done. Here's the parts, just put them in." And, I've done both arc and gas welding.
I've been rebuilding small engines lately as something to do. Being that I live down in the land of hurricanes, I've been picking up a few generators that are "broken", and fixing and/or upgrading them. The one I'm keeping, I decided it was too loud, so I picked up a cheap mapp/oxygen torch (bought by a friend in exchange for fixing their car). It's nice what a cheap car muffler and a bit of welding will do to the noise output of a cheap generator.
I'm just waiting for the first hurricane to hit. No one cares to buy a generator until the day before a storm hits, then it's "OH MY GOD, I NEED A GENERATOR!" :)
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Seriously, that was an awesome post.
My main colleague today is considered no less important than anyone else in my shop - she's had no children, is highly passionate about IT, and is AFAIK not in any hurry to bail out of the field. I'd put her brain up against the majority of the lot in this site, and easily bet on her to win. She works like us, takes the job just as seriously as we do, works the same crazy hours, and is paid just like us. I joke about her being like a sister to me, but in my case I say it with respect (one of my real sisters runs a web hosting company, another runs a trauma room as a charge nurse, another... well, you get the idea - I grew up around strong-minded women. Sue me.)
I once worked with a different woman as a colleague when I was working in academia, and the differences are, well... damn. This particular woman thought it was cool to work in IT, and she taught it at the collegiate level. OTOH, when she and I were both facing layoffs, I jumped back out into the industry, while she became a 'Programs Assistant' (read: paper-pushing bureaucrat that does nada with IT). Little wonder - in my estimation, she was barely competent, and relied more on her MCSE (and MCT, etc) than on experience to assert authority. She was a back-biting passive-aggressive political animal more suited to a conference room than a server room. I doubt that she would've lasted a month in the real world.
Funny thing is, TFA actually was the first time I even sat down and thought about that comparison. And they say Slashdot is worthless... :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
http://www.martynemko.com/articles/men-as-beasts-burden_id1228
Determining and remembering eye color is a thing only women do.
And it has nothing to do with an alleged obsession of tits or hips.
Just ask your male colleges what eye color their mothers have.
Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
Recently a commenter suggested that I post about how I became a female misogynist. I've been thinking about what to post.
I could summarize my life story, which has been an object lesson - though far from the worst one I know of - in the disastrous effects of allowing women power in society, but then, whose hasn't? Most people of my generation and younger had mothers who were happy to be told that being a mother was something you could do in your spare time, between more important, "fulfilling" pursuits.
No one has been able to remain unaware that our schools, which are run almost entirely by women, have become hotbeds of violence and sexual assault in which little if any "learning" takes place, so I don't need to recount my personal saga of spending my childhood being beaten up and groped by boys while the teachers watched happily, giggling girlishly when one of the boys glanced her way. Just last night I came across this: Girls Accepting Sexual Assault At School As Fact Of Life. Consider this carefully: this is a realm where the authority figures are almost all female, and girls are completely unsafe from boys in it. This is precisely the opposite of what feminists keep claiming will happen if they're in charge. (Also take into account that many of these boys who terrorized me were denied a male authority figure at home by divorce. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals, welfare recipients, and substance abusers come from fatherless homes.)
Then there's the many female friends who turned on me for the most incredibly superficial reasons. No amount of generosity on my part could forestall this: gifts, shelter, financial support, a sympathetic ear, favors, hopping on a plane at a moment's notice (in October of 2001, no less) because I was needed, everything I could give did me no good when I had served my purpose and the female in question was bored with me. This is why divorce is so hard to get in civilized countries; women, by nature, will drop people when they're no longer amusing or useful. When they're in a chimpanzee troop or a primitive tribe, this is only sensible for keeping the species going, but for a civilization, it pretty much sucks. Women with a sense of loyalty exist, but they are very rare. But everyone who has entrusted a woman with affection has experienced this.
And of course, there's the women I've dated. Being a female misogynist is an uncomfortable position for a lesbian, but it's also damn near inescapable. When I first came out of the closet, I rented a movie called Bar Girls, about a bunch of constantly shifting, insanely neurotic lesbian romantic relationships. I thought it was impossibly over the top. Of course, at that point I'd only had one date. One year later, I had been in several relationships every bit as insane. I spent two years in the lesbian dating game, experiencing firsthand what the Sexual Revolution has done to people's ability to commit. The straight women who write Cosmo are always complaining that they can't get men to commit to marriage. The women I've dated couldn't handle commitments along the lines of "I'll meet you at eight". I dated one woman for two weeks. Not only was she unable to stay faithful for an entire fortnight, I also caught her in four separate lies - which means there must be more I didn't stick around long enough to find out about. Then there was the one who was sleeping with several other people and using drugs, both of which she lied about right up until the end. And the one who whined and whined about how her ex-girlfriend had battered her and cheated on her, and then dumped me when that same ex asked her to come back. The only lesbians I know who don't have a supply of similar horror stories are the ones who haven't dated yet. And I know that straight men get put through the exact same wringers.
I had dreamed of meeting Miss Right and settling down with her and raising a family, a proper loving family to compensate for the one I didn't have growing up. (This, by the way, is one of the most damaging effects of fe
So the question is, whose company do you enjoy more? The fairer members of the opposite sex or the average slashdot jerk?
Fairer how? There's more to life than titties, no matter how much I might enjoy them.
Absolutely true. And you know what the best part is? You get to choose who you're going to displease ;-)
And that's why some of us use phrases like "rapid ambulation" when talking to the ladies. I would like to displease the women who cannot handle simple words like "ambulation" to the point where they leave me the fuck alone because I would like to have actual conversations beyond "wanna fuck"? It is those who are willing to pretend to be someone else to attract a mate that are doomed to unhappiness. Or did we not notice the divorce rate? The most important rule in any relationship is to be yourself. If the relationship cannot survive under those terms, then perhaps it should not. If I cannot attract a female by being myself, then obviously I don't need one.
Go ahead and pretend to be something you're not, and see how that works out for you. I'd rather not have to live every moment considering how what I do will be received.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My wife hates working with most other women, because of all their bullshit.
Of course, she's former military, and has no trouble being around rude men. She says she likes being around men more because they're more honest and straightforward, and aren't always doing sneaky deceptive stuff like women.
Proof that women ARE actually smarter than men.
IT jobs suck. I've been a systems and network administrator. It really, really sucks. The job is an endless list of problems that everybody expects you to solve instantly. Nobody realizes that the number of pieces of technology that you mastered outnumbers their marketing/managing/accounting skills 10:1 and are more complex. You're viewed as nothing but a cost; nobody attributes any profit to you. They always think their technology ideas are better than yours. You get labeled as anti-social and unfriendly because you wind up living isolated at night fixing trouble calls that woke you up. "Oh, you know about computers... Can you take a look at mine?" is acceptable but "Oh, you know accounting... can you do my taxes for me this year?" is not.
So yeah. Women are proving they're smarter than men by avoiding all this anguish and lack of appreciation.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.