Slashdot Mirror


Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School

An anonymous reader writes "Diversifying the tech industry is a prominent topic these days, with much analysis being done on colleges and companies that employ software engineers. But exam data shows the gap is created much earlier — it's almost overwhelming even before kids get out of high school. From the article: 'Ericson's analysis of the data shows that in 2013, 18 percent of the students who took the exam were women. Eight percent were Hispanic, and four percent were African-American. In contrast, Latinos make up 22 percent of the school-age population in the U.S.; African-Americans make up 14 percent. (I don't need to tell you that women make up about half.) There are some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year. No women in Mississippi or Montana took it. Seven states had no Hispanic students take the exam: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota. And 10 states had no Black students take the exam: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah. In some of these states, there simply aren't many students of any race or gender taking the test, which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities. (Indeed, no women or minorities took the exam in Wyoming—but that's because no students at all took it.) But Idaho had nearly 50 students taking it, and Utah had more than 100.'"

489 comments

  1. Women make up more than half by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (I don't need to tell you that women make up about half.)

    Actually girls graduate at a higher rate than boys both in college and in high school. So they make up more than half the graduates.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Women make up more than half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok.. but this was about people of school age, whether they eventually graduate or not.

  2. In other news by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life. More on this when we talk about how women dominate professions which require high empathy and social skills.

    1. Re:In other news by wisnoskij · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Empathy is slightly off, in fact the positions you are talking about often like lower empathy. You are talking about a good ability to read emotions/people, like a sociopath.

      Sales,HR, etc and the like. Interacting with people, but most of the time not looking out for their best interests.

      In my opinion, of what little real evidence there is, it points to men being the empathetic gender.

      1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.
      2. Women and girls are simply not known to be caring. See high-school girls (what is the first thing that pops into your mind: caring or mean and spiteful).
      3. See every female animal with a cub ever, who are known as the most cold blooded killers out there.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:In other news by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Yikes. I'm not touching that.

    3. Re:In other news by just_a_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.

      How do we know that?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have to agree. Recently UFC started adding women's fight including championships. Now in the fight game, be it boxing or MMA, there is always a certain level of trash talk before a fight. First and foremost to sell the fight. The average schlub is more likely to buy a pay-per-view of something he thinks is a grudge match. Second, to get in your opponents head and kill their confidence. Generally after the fight all the animosity goes away. The fighters are pros and they know once the fight is over the utility of trash talk is over. Better to bury the hatchet and get on good terms with your opponent, maybe one day you will work with them as a sparring partner or end up fighting out of the same gym. But...the women...they hold the grudge! Ronda Roussey refused to shake hands and talk to her opponent after her last fight, saying Meisha Tate disrespected her family etc. The crowd was booing so loud. It just seemed like such bad sportsmanship to not give some respect to the fighter you just defeated. Sometimes the loser will rush out of the arena heartbroken at the loss, but for the winner to hold a grudge and be spiteful was just bad sportsmanship! I thought women were supposed to be all about empathy? Well, to me combat sports can show a lot about a person's real personality and what it showed of women fighters is not that good.

    5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life.

      I don't know (much) about culture but concerning the gender... while it may start early in life (some would say just from the begining of it), in some cases there may be some discontinuities along

    6. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. We know that the number one creator of empathy in children is time with their father.

      How do we know that?

      Since you asked, here's a citation backing up the GP's assertion: A Qualitative Analysis of the Parental Influence on Psychoemotional Empathy Generation in Juvenile Female Homo Sapiens Sapiens

    7. Re:In other news by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Culture and culture plays a huge part as well. Look at the what most seem to think is the current 'black' culture in he US and think about how much it encourages science and technology. The problem seems to be that people don't want to bring up how dangerous is in both the short and long term as they will be thought of as racist. There is such a thing as bad cultural practices, and they can be changed fairly easily if people want to, but you need to separate it from race.

    8. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The men's fights are downright congenial. Sure they're trying to break eachother's body parts, but that's just what they do. End of it they're hugging, congratulating each-other... It's like "The way you shattered my nose was totally awesome, I have so much respect for you right now!"

      Even the trash talking is almost friendly.

    9. Re:In other news by MacTO · · Score: 1

      Well, it is based upon stereotypes both ways. But I do agree that the professions that are typically associated with empathy simply are not.

      I have a background in elementary teaching, and while caring elementary teachers are certainly sympathetic, I've encountered a number of men (and women) who could not make it because empathy got in the way. Simply put, you cannot invest too much emotion into the kids. If you do, you will both burn out and make poor decisions. The real concern is the long term development of the child (academically, physically, and socially). Sometimes that means stepping away from the immediate concerns and looking at how you can develop a foundation that will help them for the rest of their life.

    10. Re:In other news by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Note that there's some subtle discrepancy between that paper (or at least title, I haven't read the paper) and GGP's claim. Your paper refers to girls, while GGP made the claim for children generally. If a similar result were found concerning boys and time with their mothers, that would refute GGP, while being nicely symmetric with your paper.

      (I'm no student of the field, even on an amateur basis, so I have no idea whether such a result has been found or looked for...)

    11. Re:In other news by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 1

      Well, to me combat sports can show a lot about a person's real personality and what it showed of women fighters is not that good.

      I submit that women fighters may not be a representative sample of women...

    12. Re:In other news by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody who modded you up or commented actually took the time to follow the link. You should probably be less subtle on Slashdot. :)

    13. Re:In other news by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      "Ladies are sociopaths"
      Modded +3.

      Oh, slashdot.

    14. Re:In other news by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well that just ties into our understanding of people in workplaces, and history.

      Throughout stereotypes, studies, and history men have been legendary in their comradery and ability to to simutainiously disagree with someone while respecting them and working with them, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for others.
      Women, on the other hand, studies have shown their general dislike for each other, their hatred of each other's successes, and their inability to work with people they disagree with.

      Which ties into your fighter example, and would explain why men would need more empathy to fill those roles and how their actions seem to indicate a large amount of empathy.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    15. Re:In other news by Velex · · Score: 2

      Too bad it's not untrue.

      An eye-opening experience for me was a co-worker I had a while back. She was kind, hard-working, and fair. She wasn't afraid to let me know when I was wrong about something and she didn't fly off the handle when I told her she was wrong about something. Then again, I don't recall many times other than when she was new that I had to let her know her perception of how something worked wasn't accurate.

      Unfortunately, she get pulled down by the drama and decided to find another job.

      It must be difficult working as a woman. Every other woman sees you as a target, somebody to claw down. The heartbreaking thing is watching this happen to somebody, watching things that are wrong and things that aren't even wrong or are sheer lunacy get thrown around just to smear somebody. Sometimes when it gets really bad I'll see things like official documentation get surreptitiously screwed with. One thing one has to be careful about in a workplace that's dominated by womyn-born-womyn is when one woman asks you to make one change to some software and then another woman asks you to make a very similar but different change.

      Hoo boy, I've learned attempting to reconcile the two individuals requesting different things from me is a complete mistake when they're both womyn-born-womyn. I have a feeling that's what got the co-worker I liked working with in over her head. The most frustrating thing is that attempting to bring this to the attention of both individuals invariably is seen as picking sides. Sure, guys do this from time to time (just like having a vagina does not make one above sexism, having a penis does not make one above pettiness), but with a womyn-born-womyn you can count on it. It's not honest, but I've found the best way is to work through each nuance of the request, implement the parts of each that seem most correct, and then just tell both requesters it's all set. I don't know if they ever go back to check if I did what they asked, but the important point to a lot of womyn-born-womyn is that you were asked to do something so you did it without involving them in the details.

      It's not important to be objectively correct to womyn-born-womyn. They have other priorities, values, and ways of knowing. There's a lot of what that article calls "Subjective Knowledge: The inner voice" going on. Unfortunately that "way of knowing" simply doesn't lend to success when you're writing a computer program. For many womyn-born-womyn, it's just simply unimportant to move to another "way of knowing," and why should they? What benefit would using "Procedural Knowledge: Separate and connected knowing" or "Constructed Knowledge: Integrating the voices" that incorporate both personal subjective knowledge and external objective knowledge have to a Mother?

      That I think is a big problem. I cannot have children, and being trans I also have no family or any other way to influence a child with a reproductive system on the inside to have other aspirations than getting rich in sales or medicine or being Mother. Instead, it seems they continue to be influenced by Mothers and the increasingly womyn-born-womyn dominated elementary school.

      The only solution I can think of is that we have to stop giving entitlement benefits to womyn-born-womyn solely on the basis that they got themselves pregnant. Require them to have a career or some other way to support a family before they choose Mother. Unfortunately, I think a lot of womyn-born-womyn would continue to limit themselves to being a Mother, but at least maybe they'd just be a lower-case mother and there might be a father involved instead of wage garnishment.

      I look at you cisgendered people, and a lot of times I'm at a loss for many of the ways objectivity goes out the window when it comes to gender. Do I want women "back in the kitchen?" No, but I struggle to see any other outcome as long as all we do is blame anyone and everyone assigned the male ge

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    16. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, but trapped inside every man is a fratboy rapist trying to get out! at least that's what andrea dworkin told me...

    17. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot have children, and being trans I also have no family or any other way to influence a child

      Good. You have absolutely no business being around children unsupervised. I mean that. Not because you're a trans* person but because you're a petty, vindictive individual who feels compelled to continuously bash women for virtue of being born as women. There are plenty, plenty of trans* people who are loving, supportive parents. As of now, you clearly lack any emotional stability or empathy to be one of them. The hatred you have for people is practically seething out of the computer screen.

      The position you've taken throughout this entire thread is indefensible and you are a sad, pitiful individual for having taken it. It's a damn shame you're not honest with yourself, but I really hope you do become honest some day because only then will you be able to heal yourself.

    18. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, what an awesome demonstration of the concept of a confidence trick. Brilliant.

    19. Re:In other news by Fwipp · · Score: 0

      Being trans is no excuse for misogyny. I recognize that there are radfems out there that you've obviously had bad experiences with, but yeah, your worldview is consistently awful.

    20. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn.

      I would quit my job, rather than work with someone as vile, hate-filled and disgusting as you.

      So you are a deluded individual that rejects your own gender of being a man. Sounds like you hate men for being manly and upstanding, and you hate women because your deluded fantasy of being a woman can never become reality. You also can't spell 'women', or 'ridiculous'. You want everyone to bend over backwards to accept you for what you're not and play along with your make believe fantasy, and at the same time you hate women for being superior to you, hate men for being superior to you. I guess it must be very hard for you to find *anyone* who isn't superior to you.

    21. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Males have evolved in an environment where killing for food and bringing it back for others was rewarded socially, females have assigned status to this behaviour and so sexual selection has reinforced this trait. Iirc the US Army distributes food aid to males for this reason, they're the only group who will share.

      Females are trained from birth to believe they deserve resources for being female, see 'women and children first', men giving rescue opportunity, seats on lifeboats, to females based on their gender.

      It's worth looking at gender differences in empathy, in particular from female to male. In-group bias sees females strongly preferring other females. Differences in facial bone structure cause males to express emotion less than the female and less than expected by the female, the observer pattern sees that females are often incapable of discerning male emotion, especially differentiating between hate, pain and fear.

      It's easy to be selfish via emotive logic, not so easy via long term rationality.

    22. Re:In other news by JBHarris · · Score: 1

      This is a truly epic demonstration of why people need to talk less and read/listen more.

    23. Re:In other news by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Too bad it's not untrue.

      In which you provide no objective evidence or studies to back up your anecdotal experiences. You shouldn't use such strong language.

      An eye-opening experience for me was a co-worker I had a while back. She was kind, hard-working, and fair. She wasn't afraid to let me know when I was wrong about something and she didn't fly off the handle when I told her she was wrong about something. Then again, I don't recall many times other than when she was new that I had to let her know her perception of how something worked wasn't accurate.

      Unfortunately, she get pulled down by the drama and decided to find another job.

      It must be difficult working as a woman. Every other woman sees you as a target, somebody to claw down. The heartbreaking thing is watching this happen to somebody, watching things that are wrong and things that aren't even wrong or are sheer lunacy get thrown around just to smear somebody. Sometimes when it gets really bad I'll see things like official documentation get surreptitiously screwed with. One thing one has to be careful about in a workplace that's dominated by womyn-born-womyn is when one woman asks you to make one change to some software and then another woman asks you to make a very similar but different change.

      Hoo boy, I've learned attempting to reconcile the two individuals requesting different things from me is a complete mistake when they're both womyn-born-womyn. I have a feeling that's what got the co-worker I liked working with in over her head. The most frustrating thing is that attempting to bring this to the attention of both individuals invariably is seen as picking sides. Sure, guys do this from time to time (just like having a vagina does not make one above sexism, having a penis does not make one above pettiness), but with a womyn-born-womyn you can count on it. It's not honest, but I've found the best way is to work through each nuance of the request, implement the parts of each that seem most correct, and then just tell both requesters it's all set. I don't know if they ever go back to check if I did what they asked, but the important point to a lot of womyn-born-womyn is that you were asked to do something so you did it without involving them in the details.

      What you described is common workplace pettiness typically demonstrated by business stakeholders and analysts in a dysfunctional software development company. Lower level business analysts and project managers might have a much higher propensity to being female in many industries, Eg. Healthcare, where many of the domain experts and business experts used to be nurses or technicians that already have a higher propensity for being women. Your presumptions about the natural state of women are based on a painfully small subset of professional women as a demographic. Keep in mind as a software developer I have seen the same behavior as you describe but based on a more worldly view I am not jumping to such big conclusions as you describe because I have also certainly seen pettiness in the same subset comprised of men. Perhaps it is something about non-technical people being under the gun and stressed about something they don't truly understand that causes people to lash out and bring out the claws.

      It's not important to be objectively correct to womyn-born-womyn. They have other priorities, values, and ways of knowing. There's a lot of what that article calls "Subjective Knowledge: The inner voice" going on. Unfortunately that "way of knowing" simply doesn't lend to success when you're writing a computer program. For many womyn-born-womyn, it's just simply unimportant to move to another "way of knowing," and why should they? What benefit would using "Procedural Knowledge: Separate and connected knowing" or "Constructed Knowledge: Integrating the voices" that incorporate both personal subjective knowle

    24. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding, my eight year old boy just told me about how women aren't interested in computers and don't know anything about them.

    25. Re:In other news by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Gender and culture start early in life, and continue through life. More on this when we talk about how women dominate professions which require high empathy and social skills.

      I seem to recall that in the former Soviet Union, the pay of medical doctors was relatively low, and relatively low status. It was dominated by women.

      Women tend to dominate professions that have historically had low pay and low social status, largely because high paying and high status jobs have been denied to them. Society tends to undervalue professions requiring high empathy and social skills.

    26. Re:In other news by LienRag · · Score: 1

      High-School girls coming from civilized families are usually really caring indeed.
      I know the bitches you're referring too, but that's not the natural breed.

    27. Re:In other news by Velex · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the reply.

      No other choice but to go back in the kitchen... that women would rather pole-dance than pursue a more dignified career because money is the only thing important to them... Your bias is showing.

      Where can I meet this mythical womyn-born-womyn? I've observed what I've observed first-hand.

      Hell, I've had girls (plural! multiple!) that my ex-boyfriend have dated that have offered to cook and clean for me if I'd let them move in! Every time I've said hell no, just move in if that's what you want to do. These womyn-born-womyn need higher aspirations. One who wanted to be an engineer before she learned she could dance on a pole and make good money just like her own Mother (I do have respect for the athleticism involved, but little else) I tried as best I could to tell to forget the cooking and cleaning and focus on taking classes. Well, last I heard about her, she had become a Mother, sights still set on retirement around 35. How can I blame her? Maybe I'd do the same things if I had been born with my reproductive system on the inside and had the opportunities and privileges that came with that.

      Hell, I'd be happy if I even knew what life with intact genitals was like. You can't tell me womyn-born-womyn aren't privileged when it's illegal and gets us jerking our knees like there's no tomorrow at the suggestion of even poking a clitoris with a pin, but there's no recourse for all the physical pain circumcision left me with and there's no recourse for the discomfort I still suffer even after HRT eliminated the excrutiating pain that had me planning suicide.

      lame misogynistic 4chan derogatory terms

      There really are people who act as white knights and I know no better term for them outside of perhaps pro-feminist chauvenists or maybe just bigots. They believe that womyn-born-womyn are utterly blameless perpetual victims. That's an attitude that should be held in contempt, because it is at utter odds with gender equality. I mean, I'm a short person (fortunately for me given my other circumstances). No matter whether I have estrogen or testosterone in my system, most women are taller and objectively stronger than me.

      Additionally, I've realized that the term "womyn-born-womyn" wasn't quite as well known as I had hoped. That term doesn't come from 4chan (unless somebody there picked up on the same hypocrisies that led me to start using it). It comes straight from the feminist movement. Feminists are extremely threatened by trans women (once one understands feminism is a religion and has nothing to do with gender equality, this is easy to account for), so they invented a term based on the term "womyn" to shame trans women with. It strikes me as a kind of no true Scotsman thing. After all, feminists who refer to themselves as womyn-born-womyn as a way of degrading and marginalizing trans women haven't had their genitals inspected Crocodile Dundee style. How else could anyone possibly know that the speaker herself never had a period or couldn't have children or had any number of other health conditions that would make her any different from this spiritual femaleness that we're supposed to believe is superior because it has a period and it can have children. Hell, if I wanted, after I get bottom surgery or otherwise if I were very careful, I probably could actually invade a feminist group, present myself as a womyn-born-womyn, and pull it off. I'm not a lesbian, so other "womyn-born-womyn" would have no reason to inspect my genitals. That feminists would draw a distinction and slander an entire group of people---trans women---based on the honesty of the individuals in that group by disclosing their past when discussing matters of gender, to me is utterly contemptable.

      Then there's womyn-born-womyn who have manly features. You've seen one or two and so have I. I always wonder how often they're accused of being trans by a feminist while using a changing room or bathroom. They're not trans

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  3. No Shit Sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find it starts even earlier than that in the what do you want to be when you grow up department.

    1. Re:No Shit Sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd say it starts earlier than that.

      Little Bobby's Christmas presents:
      -Hot Wheels
      -Various Construction/Tool Sets (LEGO, K'NEX, Erector, etc).
      -Nerf Guns

      Little Suzie's Christmas presents:
      -Easy Bake Oven
      -Barbie Dolls
      -That Weird Doll That Is Supposed To Act Like A Real Baby

  4. oh no! by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kids who are not interested in XXX dont do XXX when they get out of high school! Also, water is wet

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High school is where kids begin to decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives, and women have the socially acceptable option of being housewives. That's got to be a strong lure.

    2. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kids who are not interested in XXX dont do XXX when they get out of high school! Also, water is wet

      Very true. However, I think I speak for all of Slashdot when I say that XXX is one field where I'd prefer there not be an equal split between men and women. Please, continue to let women dominate the profession. You can have equality for men when you pry it from my warm, sticky hands!

    3. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but I don't know what country you're from, but if women are pushing to be house wives, they're doing a damn bad job at it. I'm a better cook, I'm better at sewing, I've had to teach women how to do laundry, show them tricks to get stubborn pots and pans clean, and on and on. I think women at this point try to be anti-house wife. So much so to the point that they can't do the basic things needed to live.

      That being said, I work with some guys in their 60s who can't do any of that stuff either. I think a massive cultural change hit through the 70s and 80s to the point where women reject any "stereotypical female gender role" to the point where they can't care for themselves in the same manner which the stereotypical man couldn't take care of themselves in the 50s and 60s.

    4. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure all kids are interested in XXX in high school... not so many go into that business, though!

      captcha: fondling

    5. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some states are more worried about students graduating high school rather than some ap comp sci exam (especially new mexico)

    6. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some serious comedy in your post about kids and XXX, and I'm sure it's bordering on obscene as a bad, unintended joke. The gender and culture gap in tech is simply because tech isn't cool, doesn't get you laid, and being into sports or cars or having cash does. Tech is a much longer term investment, and it's also a gamble that may not pay off, either.

    7. Re:oh no! by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Kids who are not interested in XXX dont do XXX when they get out of high school! Also, water is wet

      Very true. However, I think I speak for all of Slashdot when I say that XXX is one field where I'd prefer there not be an equal split between men and women. Please, continue to let women dominate the profession. You can have equality for men when you pry it from my warm, sticky hands!

      Much like how straight men like their straight porn, gay men like their gay porn. According to best estimates, gay porn accounts for 5-15% of the market, which is in line with estimates of what percentage of the population is gay. So it seems like there is equality based on demand.

      http://wordsbynowak.com/2010/04/15/how-much-of-porn-is-gay/
      But apparently we're a much more demanding market:

      The gay market is unique in that they will pay for quality, they tend to be much more brand focused than straight porn consumers, and much more tech savvy.

    8. Re:oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should hope that they don't become interested in XXX until they are of the legal age in their state and that they don't do XXX until of legal age in the state of such performance.

  5. This is the AP Comp Sci exam by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?
    If you treat education like a cup of coffee, you might be more pleased with the results.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

      If you treat education like a cup of coffee, you might be more pleased with the results.

      Because education isn't about personal gain anymore. It's a business. Period. And you've become nothing more than a number. Not even a student number, just a number buried in a statistical pile somewhere that states exactly what you should expect to achieve with your over-analyzed degree over the next 50 years, to include your chances of getting married, having children, or your expectant salary down to the dollar, adjusted for your zip code.

      Statistics. That unforgiving bitch no one asked to be invited that tries to manipulate all of our lives. I kind of feel bad for women here to be honest. After all, it's clear that they don't have interest in certain fields, and yet we're berating them into it with pointless statististics. Fuck that. Do what you WANT in life. You only get one shot at it, and statistics are often dead fucking wrong due to personal choice and the chaos that ensues.

    2. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

      When you have a real job and all the bills are paid.

    3. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Statistics. That unforgiving bitch no one asked to be invited that tries to manipulate all of our lives.

      Statistics don't manipulate people - people manipulate people.

      Seriously. I wish more people understood more about statistics, in particular their elementary application, because that would avoid much of what you're talking about. If nothing else beat into their heads two basic points. First, correlation does not demonstrate correlation. Most people here have heard that a thousand times, but it's not widely appreciated in the general population. Second, statistical behavior is not deterministic. That's the ultimate "duh, no kidding", but it's usually unappreciated. If person A belongs to group G, P(success|G) < P(success|!G), it doesn't determine whether person A will succeed.

      "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" only applies to people who don't understand statistics and their application.

    4. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Funny

      People don't know what "correlation" and "causation" mean in the first place.

      Let alone used together.

    5. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention variance around the mean.

    6. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From your word choices I will make the entirely stereotypical and somewhat racist assumption that you're a Brit.

      Would you be cool with it if the only 18-year-old kids in Scotland who evinced an interest in one of the most lucrative career fields were the children/grandchildren of peers? Would you just be like "I guess the commoners like working for McDonald's?" Or "I guess Irish Catholics don't enjoy tech work." Because that's pretty much exactly what's happening here. The people who ran the country (and, in fact, who created the country specifically for their own benefit) were white men. We've fixed most of the worst problems, now we really pride ourselves on America's ability take anybody (that "Give us your poor" poem on the Statue of Liberty was always jingoistic BS, but that doesn't mean we don't think it should be true) whose willing to work and make them wealthy.

      Tech is the career field that is most likely to take you from loser to Millionaire before your 30th birthday. And only the old nobility is taking advantage of it. Therefore everyone else wants to know why. Your explanation ("Black people and women just don't like tech work") works at a logical level, but it's identical to the reasoning white men used to explain why black people and women weren't dominating the economy in 1910; which means that it's not terribly convincing.

      What I suspect is going on is a couple things:

      1) The white upper-middle class is a lot bigger on college education then anybody else (except possibly Asians, but none of the states mentioned have a large Asian population). This means they send their kids to schools which have lots of AP course options, and force their little darlings to take multiple of these courses. A HS AP course not only raises your GPA, thus increasing your odds of Harvard, if you pass the test it also counts as a 3-4 credit college class. I suspect that if the AP did a survey on class status of test-takers the white working class (which is bigger then the black population in most states) would take the test even less.

      Note that the way we do education in America guarantees that non-whites (and poorer whites) will have significantly less access to AP tests. You either have to pay $20k per kid per year in private education, or live in a school district with a bunch of rich people paying taxes to get your kid into a school that offers lots of AP classes. Since school districts tend only to have a handful of neighborhoods, this means to use public schools with AP tests you have to be wealthy enough to live in a very good neighborhood. It also means that in the event a cheap neighborhood ends up in a good district, it stops being cheap.

      2) HS kids are obsessed with identity. The ultimate insult to any HS-age boy is to imply he's either female or gay. Girls will try boy things at that age, but not as often as they would a few years later. It's very rare for a non-white HS student to consider a white teacher a role model, but early 20-somethings will happily take a white college professor as a role model. Which means that when one racial/class group monopolizes a career field it's much less likely for HS-age kids of other groups to think they could actually do that shit. A couple years after High School the technically inclined black kids will stop thinking of programming as something that makes white guys (like Zuckerberg) rich, and start thinking of it is something they could do, but generally by the time you're 20 you're already a) in the midst of a career or b) halfway through college in a non-CompSci program.

      Note that this is not just a race/gender problem. The kids of the working class white guys aren't likely to go for computer programming when they're 17 because Zuckerberg/Gates/etc. all seem a lot like NPR-listening upper-middle-class geeks and they're proud hicks. But nobody measures this shit because in the US nobody really thinks the white working class is distinct from the white upper class.

      --------------------

      I don't really know if there's a way

    7. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's very rare for a non-white HS student to consider a white teacher a role model,

      And it is also rare for a white HS student to consider a teacher a role model. At that age - we were not going to be teachers.

      Einstein and Edison was my role models. I did not know what they looked like, color unknown. I had only read about them in books. Books without pictures. I admired them for being smart.

    8. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Oops, "correlation does not demonstrate correlation" should obviously be "correlation does not demonstrate causation".

    9. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Beat the 2 points I mentioned into people's heads, and then we can work on the fancy stuff.

    10. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Is Einstein (or Edison) a useful role model; far less, the thoroughly mythologized versions presented in books? Sure, Einstein is someone to admire --- but I'm no Einstein (and nor are any of the scientists I regularly work with). There's no meaningful way for me to model my life on a "be like Einstein" principle, no matter how cool I think that would be. On the other hand, I've had lots of great role models --- real live "ordinary" people, showing ways to live productive and fulfilling lives without having Einstein's brain in my noggin.

    11. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Bengie · · Score: 1

      That YouTube link was horrible at explaining something that doesn't pertain to this subject.

    12. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

      The problem is that young kids are not mature and informed enough to make that decision. They should be exposed to a wide variety of subjects before they make a decision to focus on one. Even colleges generally require students to take a core of required courses and a wide variety of electives. When I was in college, I wanted to focus only on engineering and science. But looking back from the other end of a lifetime, I can see that the "core" classes in humanities and literature were the most important.

    13. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      The two unite at the point where a bunch of pencil-neck bureaucrats appoint themselves to do your thinking for you, rather than face the truth that you will drink in education much as you would coffee.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    14. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There's no meaningful way for me to model my life on a "be like Einstein" principle

      Actually, there is. Einstein's talent (and he said this himself) was to look at a problem with no preconceptions. Other physicists just assumed (without realizing that they were assuming) that the universe had some fixed frame of reference. Einstein was able to go further by backing up to a better starting point. So when you are trying to solve a difficult problem, instead of trying to push forward to a complex solution, you should "be like Einstein" and go back to your assumptions. List them all, and especially try to list the unstated assumptions that you might be missing. Then start crossing them out, and try to solve your problem from a fresh perspective, without the preconceptions.

    15. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      After all, it's clear that they don't have interest in certain fields

      It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.

      Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oops, "correlation does not demonstrate correlation" should obviously be "correlation does not demonstrate causation".

      Correlation does not demonstrate causality. However, it strongly correlates with it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    17. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tech is the career field that is most likely to take you from loser to Millionaire before your 30th birthday.

      If by "loser", you mean "a wealthy white upper-middle-class upbringing, where mommy and daddy paid for everything", then sure.

    18. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean to say sexism in tech is much worse than, say, in secretarial jobs, sales, or, say, modelling - neither of which lack women workers and all of which are pretty damn sexist through and through?

      Do you mean to say sexism in tech starts right in college (and doesn't start in college for any other line of study), scaring girls even before they get to that den of iniquity called IT Dept.?

      Seriously, sexism IS a problem wherever it appears, but do you have anything to show that sexism in tech is so much stronger that it scares girls straight outta college and in other, presumably less sexist, jobs? Or is it just your gutfeel and anecdotes?

    19. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it completely messed up all of the analogies with the healthcare issue. People are too stupid to know what they need. They get it anyway in the end, we just want them to at least pay for it, and if they can't afford it, they get tax credits. But that's a different discussion. My point is the completely got the whole healthcare argument wrong, so why you'd want to use it to "prove" another issue is beyond me.

    20. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by mopower70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's also pretty clear, based on the experiences of women who have an interest in technology, that they experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness, many enough for them to quit. If it were just a couple, then I'd think it was maybe a fluke, but when every woman I've talked to in tech about it has said they experienced it, and all but 2 of my female college classmates dropped out of the CS program, I'd say it's safe to say there's a sexism problem in the culture of tech that should be addressed.

      My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience. Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not. Men are just not used to the dynamic of a primarily female workplace, and the same holds true for women.

      Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.

      So, the woman who finds a male nursing co-worker attractive is the problem with the under-representation of men in the nursing field? Men interact with men differently than they interact with women. Women interact with women differently than with men. "Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure. There are plenty of fields that are balanced in gender representation. There is absolutely nothing inherent in IT professionals that they create a more "sexist" environment than there is in nursing or teaching professionals. Attempting to blame the behavior of those already in the field is disingenuous, uninformed, and insulting.

    21. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get any: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed?

      If it's about her work, congratulations, you're probably gay!

    22. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, perhaps, you know, guys like sex, and most are not gay? I doubt that the above reaction would be too different if the female person in question was not from the tech field.

    23. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One: I've had the exact opposite experience that you did. Every woman I've ever met that works in tech has said that she liked the field and has only ever been treated very well. I went to school for CS with about ten women. None of them ever had any complaints. I'm at the point where I question whether the popular "Tech has a sexism problem" situation is actually true or just something for certain groups to complain about.

      Two: This is human nature. I'm sorry to point this out, but men AND women, if they're single and meet somebody with similar backgrounds and are attractive, will do exactly what you're describing. That isn't sexist. It doesn't make them "Part of the problem". If they start harassing, leering, etc. THEN, and only then, are they part of the problem. But labeling normal behaviour as sexist makes you part of another very real problem.

    24. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The other problem I've seen is a cultural one. Many people in the workplaces that I've been in are from countries around the world where women aren't viewed as equals. This is particularly exacerbated when the women are from these same cultures as well as they don't resist the abuse or stick up for themselves.

      But I agree that there is a confrontational aspect to tech jobs that's often difficult for women. In most of the environments where I've worked, it's entirely acceptable, if not encouraged, to be able to say things of the effect, "that idea is stupid." Men seem to have an easier time separating themselves from their ideas and the work they produce to the point where ideas can be discussed bluntly without being taken personally. Around women, I've learned that I have to take a more balanced approach where I talk about both what I like and what I dislike about an idea. It can become frustrating because it usually makes discussions like that take longer than necessary.

    25. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      The question is are girls avoiding it because they're not interested, or are there some subtle (or not) level of sexism inherent in the industry? It used to be that orchestras were nearly 100% male, and all kinds of excuses were put forth as to how males were better musicians, more dedicated, etc. Then they started doing auditions with the player behind a screen, and suddenly the male-female ratio jumped to right around 50-50. Are you sure girls are avoiding CS because they aren't interested?

    26. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Men who work in the primarily female field of nursing experience cattiness, back-stabbing, and undermining cliquishness. Are women in nursing inherently sexist? No, of course not.

      And if I were a woman in nursing, I'd consider it my responsibility to consider that a problem and try to put a stop to it so that men who are good at nursing will be more likely to go into the field. Also, for what it's worth, the "penalty" for being a man in nursing is faster promotion to management, and assignment to higher-paying and easier specialties like orthopedics. And the "penalty" for being a man interested in medicine is mentors and teachers pushing you instead towards the related but higher-paying qualifications like MD or PA rather than RN or NP. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for men in nursing.

      "Professionalism" that attempts to pretend that's not true is doomed to failure.

      Have you ever really honestly tried it? I have, and it works - women I work with treat me professionally in return, we both get done what we need to get done, we share ideas about our work so we're both working better, and we just relate in roughly the same way we'd relate if we were both guys focused on our job. It's not like women are some alien species, they would simply like in a professional context to be judged on their capabilities and accomplishments rather than sexual attractiveness to male colleagues or bosses. Just like you would probably be upset if the key characteristic you brought to your job was an obviously large package or a particular way you did your hair, and you could tell that that was what was getting you (or your colleagues) raises and promotions.

      If you still don't understand the situation, and you have a sister you're reasonably close to, ask her about it sometime. Basically, there are times when some women may want to be hit on, but at work (where she's probably just trying to make the money she needs to support herself and any family she might have) is not one of those times or places. If you are hitting on a female colleague who has not shown any interest in you, you aren't being romantic, you're being an annoyance at best. I remember watching one guy who was into an accountant who worked in the cube across from me: Every day, he would make up a reason to come talk to her, and try to get personal - she simply saw him as a pathetic loser distracting her from her work, and was quite happy to switch to a different company.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    27. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      From your word choices

      Like AP?

      [...] I will make the entirely stereotypical and somewhat racist assumption that you're a Brit.

      Then I'll make the entirely justified assumption that you're a fat idiot. We don't have all that AP malarkey over here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      That's a nice snappy soundbite --- but, perhaps a bit easier said than done. What list of revolutionary scientific discoveries can you credit to your own name from following such sage advice?

      Yes, there are lots of things admirable about, and lots to learn from, the experience of folks like Einstein. However, a useful role model is not necessarily the same as high-level pithy quips extracted from a mythologized lifetime of work. Real-life role models (in teachers, parents, friends, etc.), versus aspirational heroes, might be a bit more mundane --- but can make a far greater difference in a person's life. No matter how many inspirational Einstein posters you plaster on the walls, don't expect youth (of any gender or race) to become infused with scientific greatness.

    29. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just a number buried in a statistical pile somewhere that states exactly what you should expect to achieve with your over-analyzed degree over the next 50 years, to include your chances of getting married, having children, or your expectant salary down to the dollar, adjusted for your zip code.

      Bingo.

      Considering everything they analyze and education itself is now another means to figure out how to place a stupid ad in front of your face. If this is where business innovation is heading (ads), I'm going to be depressed.

    30. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      He could have gotten AP from reading the actual article. When I post about A-Levels don't refer to them as the SATs just because I'm American and we don't have A-Levels.

      I was actually responding to his use of "fancy" as a verb. Sometimes Americans who like sounding British will use the phrase "fancy that," but otherwise we just don't use it much. Wiktionary lists several definitions of"fancy" as a verb, and they're almost all UK, formal, or archaic.

    31. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      My experience has been that women in technology who say they "experience hostility, sexism, and nastiness" are experiencing the exact same environment that the men they work with experience.

      Sounds like you work in a generally unpleasant place.

      I have rarely experienced hostility or nastiness, let alone sexism. I have witnessed most of my female coworkers be subjected to such on a semi regular basis. Most often, some variation of a male finding excuses for devaluing a female's contribution in spite of clear evidence of equal or superior quality and quantity of contribution. Sometimes there was actual hostility/nastiness directed at women that was never directed at other men.

      As for school-age treatment of females vs males, from pre-school all the way up, the school discouraged my female classmates from science and engineering, and for those girls set on science and/or engineering, the school cast them as future teachers (or nurses for those interested in medical science), discouraging them from pursuing careers in industry. My girlfriend, who is an engineer, experienced this bias in school, so did our daughter, who is now an engineering student at a highly rated university.

      My colleagues in other companies report similar experiences and observations.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    32. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does she get to decide if she can have a personal conversation? Does a vagina excuse someone from being sexist?

    33. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      No, I am not sure. I'm also unsure that these numbers actually point to any sort of bias. They are numbers.
      What I want is a statute of limitations, where, after X decades of not expressing any covert or overt bias, we confess that the bias is supplied on the part of those claiming to observe the bias.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    34. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry women find you repulsive, but the way you imagine the world is, simply isn't true.

      You are the one who is delusional if you think "not hitting on women at work" means "never have sex". But maybe this is because I have a social life when I'm not working.

      It's really simple: There are times and places where it's acceptable to try to get laid. There are times and places where it's not acceptable. Work (and work-related activities like professional conferences) fall into the second category. Are you really so desperate for contact with women that the only ones you meet are the ones who are paid to be there?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    35. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einstein and Edison was my role models. I did not know what they looked like, color unknown. I had only read about them in books. Books without pictures. I admired them for being smart.

      My condolences. Edison was a cantankerous and obstreperous bully, and Einstein was a known womanizer.

    36. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      People are too stupid to know what they need.

      So say those who are quick to supply a train wreck of a bureaucratic solution. Bureaucrats are the eternal solution in search of a problem.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    37. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 1

      More than in Sports?

      Women obsess over sports and sports stars, but American sports in particular is steeped in outright, overt, blatant sexism and hostility to women at at a level that is unimaginable in tech circles.

      Do you know what the average college jock/NFL athelete thinks about and how they treat women?

      Do you know what the term `fuck truck' means?

      What about the entire concept of cheerleading, where women in skimpy outfits parade and cheer the achievements of male atheletes?

      Do you really think tech is more sexist than all this?

      Yet women as a whole seem to have no problem with organized sports; so I have to conclude that whatever is keeping them away from tech, it is not sexism.

      And BTW, this is purely an American phenomenon. Asian/Indian and European women don't seem to be fazed by tech.

    38. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed" - i don't see the problem in this - if i find someone attractive and haven't been laid for a while, it's only natural, that i get horny thoughts. that's not sexist, sexist is acting like a sexist pig.

      also - let her make it "personal" that's positive discrimination you're proposing here (meaning: it's pretty sexist)

    39. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem. If it's about the hope of bedding her, then you need to pay attention and make sure you're thinking with your brain rather than your dick. If you don't know for sure, err on the side of professionalism and focusing on work, and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to. If you can't stick to those rules, you are part of the problem.

      The amount of man-hate in this is just staggering. Women and men are individuals, and they live in a society filled with other individuals. We're all expected to grow up and learn to deal with life. That means telling the jerk breathing over your neck that he is being inappropriate. But what it absolutely does not mean is that an entire gender needs to bend over backwards and act shy to not offend the opposite gender. Or for the other gender to act coy and play a complicated mating ritual in order to ascertain mating intentions and to approve them covertly; while at the same time the other side is not allowed to signal those intentions. Ridiculous.

      Now, I don't know what your reasoning behind this is. Or how you made the jump in logic that says it's somehow "not okay" until the female approves and/or initiates. Yet, you don't hold women to the same standard. Because if you did, and people were to subscribe to your one-sided and sexist ideas then no one would ever procreate.

      Reading one of your other comments now, I notice you seem to think that such actions are inappropriate in work settings. Why? Where do you draw the arbitrary line between pursuing friendship and pursuing intimacy with a colleague? Since it is okay to make friends with your fellow colleagues, which is a social activity, why is it not appropriate to make an intimate one? On top of that, you are not the only individual in society, and you can't project your own personal biases, emotional conclusions and downright selfish notions of social interaction onto the rest of us. Some people are perfectly okay with and willing to pursue intimate relations with colleagues. If that is a problem with the employer, then they need to individually deal with it. If a colleague is being a jerk at work, you deal with them on a case-by-case basis. That means you mustn't attack a gender because you never grew up and learnt how to deal with possibly romantic and/or sexual advances in an uncomfortable location.

    40. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by XcepticZP · · Score: 1

      It's really simple: There are times and places where it's acceptable to try to get laid. There are times and places where it's not acceptable. Work (and work-related activities like professional conferences) fall into the second category.

      That is your opinion, and you're welcome to follow it. The rest of us will listen to the actual women around us in an open and honest context. Now take your man-bashing elsewhere, buddy.

    41. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong - it's just the same here in europe. maybe some scandinavian countries are different (as usual), but european girls are less interested in technical subjects in school than boys, attend a technical education less often (i've been to an IT-oriented highschool where there were about 250 boys for every girl - they never had a problem finding a boyfriend, no matter how nerdy they looked. there are relatively more girls on a college level, but they are still outnumbered by a large margin) and work in tech less often.

      this might be a cultural thing but having seen a lot of young boys gravitating toward competition, cars and superheroes, while girls often seem to fancy princesses, horses and the like - no matter how "gender neutral" their surrounding was, i strongly doubt, that culture is the only factor (but it's probably pretty significant nonetheless).

      the race gap is definitely a cultural thing, what else could it be?

    42. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by volmtech · · Score: 1

      That is what "affirmative action" was supposed to do. More black kids would have an upper-middle class upbringing because mommy and daddy were able to attend a good college and were given a good paying job. Maybe it takes more than that?

    43. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I encounter one, there's usually a few fantasy daydreams. When I _interact_ with one, it's about the job.

    44. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they are taught from an early age That they Can and should use their sexuality for power ,leverage and material gain and there are other fields of endeavor that pay better?

      In a raw capitalist system that is actual a sound tactic.

    45. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually corporate law and investment banking are more likely to take you from loser to millionaire before 30...sure, a few rockstar startup founders get rich in tech but the average programmer makes like 100k until he spouts a few grey hairs and gets put out to pasture.

    46. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and let her make the conversation personal if she wants to.

      fuck your reverse sexism

    47. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And if I were a woman in nursing, I'd consider it my responsibility to consider that a problem and try to put a stop to it so that men who are good at nursing will be more likely to go into the field.

      What about other fields? From what women, including my own wife and my mother, have told me, this stuff isn't a problem unique to nursing, it's a problem unique to female-dominated work environments. My wife generally dislikes other women because she's had so many negative experiences with women in the workplace, even in workplaces that were male-dominated: there's always a "jezebel" woman who goes out of her way to dominate things and be the "queen bee", and make sure all the other women are either under her thumb, or pushed out if she sees them as a threat.

      It's not like women are some alien species, they would simply like in a professional context to be judged on their capabilities and accomplishments rather than sexual attractiveness to male colleagues or bosses.

      That may be true for some, but there's definitely a very significant number of them who use their looks to their advantage. It's not just women either; attractive people of both genders use it to their advantage, even if they're not fully aware of it or trying to do so intentionally. There's been studies of this; people like to be around other attractive people (of either gender, it's not always opposite-gender), and will put extra effort into pleasing attractive people which they won't do for ugly people. You can get a lot of favors and special treatment just by being attractive (and it usually helps to be nice of course), which ugly people just won't get no matter how nice they act.

    48. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You are the one who is delusional if you think "not hitting on women at work" means "never have sex". But maybe this is because I have a social life when I'm not working.

      It's really simple: There are times and places where it's acceptable to try to get laid. There are times and places where it's not acceptable. Work (and work-related activities like professional conferences) fall into the second category. Are you really so desperate for contact with women that the only ones you meet are the ones who are paid to be there?

      Lots of people meet their partners at work. It's not a "no-dating" place, though most places will frown on bosses dating subordinates. Where else are you going to meet eligible people anyway? Really, I'd like you to answer this, because I'm calling bullshit on this.

      There's only a few places to meet people in modern American society:
      1) school (high school, college). We're talking about the workplace here, so obviously we're talking about people who are no longer students, and apparently are still single, which shouldn't be unusual.
      2) church. If you're not religious, this isn't much help.
      3) bars/clubs. If you're not an alcoholic, or would prefer to avoid dating an alcoholic, this isn't much help.
      4) work. You spend at least 1/3 of your day here; why wouldn't you want to date someone here? You're not going to get to know someone as well in any other venue, except maybe school which doesn't apply.
      5) online dating. This seems to be where everyone who couldn't meet anyone in 1-4 goes to date, and it shows in the quality of people there. There's no shortage of people complaining about all the absolute losers and total freaks they've met on online dating sites. This doesn't mean you can't find a quality person there, but the signal:noise ratio is very low.

    49. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I really hate stupid surveys like this that thinks everything has to be equal among all the different ethnic backgrounds, and sexes. To me they just come off as a bunch of fucking racists/sexists that will bash the shit out of the hard working white male (those evil white males!).

    50. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Where else are you going to meet eligible people anyway?

      Let's see, things that have led to relationships for either myself or other men I know:
      - Organizations and social clubs of all stripes. Whatever you're interested in (which incidentally means that you immediately have a shared interest).
      - Shows, sporting events, and other entertainments. Again, you immediately have something that you both like or at least tolerate enough to make the effort to be there.
      - Swing dancing and folk dancing.
      - Yes, at bars or restaurants. You don't have to be a drunk to go to a bar for 1-2 drinks once in a while. If you are an alcoholic, try hanging out with alcoholic support groups.
      - If you're a freethinker / agnostic / atheist, then try hanging out with the local freethinker / agnostic / atheist group. If there isn't one, try to start one.
      - Once you know some people, you're spending time with them, and in the process meet their other friends, some of whom become your friends, and then you're spending time with their friends, etc.

      Sure, you're not going to get to know people by sitting on your couch, but to think that the 5 you mentioned are your only options is just plain silly.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    51. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      And studies like this one prove you false. Women don't avoid IT because they've been in the field and find it troublesome (the people, not the work). The "trouble" starts much earlier. They don't go into IT, and stop considering it, long before they are aware of what the working environment will be. That points to something other than "sexism in the workplace" as a much larger factor.

      Your irrelevant rant only masks the problem, and is counter-productive to real progress. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

    52. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      - Organizations and social clubs of all stripes. Whatever you're interested in (which incidentally means that you immediately have a shared interest)

      Men and women frequently have very different interests. How many women are interested in computer programming (as a hobby) or electronics or woodworking? How many men are interested in knitting or quilting?

      - Shows, sporting events, and other entertainments. Again, you immediately have something that you both like or at least tolerate enough to make the effort to be there.

      You complain about people hitting on people at work, and you think THIS is appropriate? Going up to some random woman at a sporting event or theater show and hitting on her? Really??? Holy shit.

      - Swing dancing and folk dancing.

      See my comment above about men and women having different interests. I don't give two shits about swing or folk dancing, and even less about country dancing.

      - Yes, at bars or restaurants. You don't have to be a drunk to go to a bar for 1-2 drinks once in a while

      Restaurants aren't places to meet people. There's rarely single people there, except at the bar (if it has one), and you don't walk up to women sitting alone at a table and ask to sit with them. And yes, the people who frequent bars usually are drunks. There is one exception: you'll sometimes find single non-drunk people sitting at the bar in a nice restaurant, eating actual food, but frequently these people are business travelers. That's fine if you want a one-night stand, but not so great for a relationship, since long-distance relationships almost never work out.

      - If you're a freethinker / agnostic / atheist, then try hanging out with the local freethinker / agnostic / atheist group. If there isn't one, try to start one.

      Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Let's all meet to discuss how we don't believe in something! How much conversation about that do you really think you can have?

      I'm sorry, you sound like a total idiot. Workplaces are perfectly valid places to meet single people, and the idea that you should never hit on someone at work is simply ridiculous and asinine. This of course doesn't mean you should stalk someone; once they say "no" once, you have to leave them alone or else you're committing harassment and can be fired, but asking someone out once is perfectly acceptable.

    53. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      "As for school-age treatment of females vs males, from pre-school all the way up, the school discouraged my female classmates from science and engineering, and for those girls set on science and/or engineering, the school cast them as future teachers (or nurses for those interested in medical science), discouraging them from pursuing careers in industry. My girlfriend, who is an engineer, experienced this bias in school, so did our daughter, who is now an engineering student at a highly rated university."

      So..since when does a public school give even the tiniest of shits about a student's career? Also I apparently had good middle/high schools, because literally nothing you've said is true of the 3 (highschool) I attended.

    54. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      "But labeling normal behaviour as sexist makes you part of another very real problem." A much much larger problem that is only growing today.

    55. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Redmancometh · · Score: 2

      "Note that this is not just a race/gender problem. The kids of the working class white guys aren't likely to go for computer programming when they're 17 because Zuckerberg/Gates/etc. all seem a lot like NPR-listening upper-middle-class geeks and they're proud hicks. But nobody measures this shit because in the US nobody really thinks the white working class is distinct from the white upper class."

      As someone who comes from decidedly redneck stock (Texan), and who grew up in Texas schools let me say this:
      A) No one..I mean absolutely no group is more wow'd by tech.
      B) In my experience no group is as likely to ask "how in the hell did you do that" and actually listen to the answer.
      C) I've lived in suburbian SoCal (my contender for polar opposite) and they don't care how *any* system works. They "just want it to work" like apple fans.

      Just generalizing here obviously.

      Also I don't think it's the "working class" as you would put it that have an issue it's the "lower class." I'm sure it's defined elsewhere, but I would say people living $2-3k/yr below the poverty line. Those are the people who don't have computers in their house, or at least not until it's 100% necessary. Those kids (unless they are real savants) aren't going to just randomly pick up general computing. If they don't pick that up specialized education probably won't follow...except as "just a job" in the smarter kids.

    56. Re: This is the AP Comp Sci exam by readin · · Score: 0

      the race gap is definitely a cultural thing, what else could it be?

      I used to think the same way - mostly as a act of faith or dogma. But as I get older, learn more about history, the world, and science, I find myself doubting my earlier faith.

      On an individual leverl, discrimination remains both stupid and wrong. Men are taller than women in general, but if you need something off the top shelf you don't ask Danny Devito instead of Geena Davis just because Danny Devito is a man.

      However for social policy we may have to come to terms with differences. Perhaps the liberals when they insist on affirmative action aren't being racist, they're just being realistic about how unfair advantage is the only way to let some groups succeed. It may be that conservatives are wrong to think that if we treat everyone equally the achievements of racial groups will even out over time. And if equality between groups is necessary for social stability - maybe we have to discriminate.

      It's scary to think that racial differences may be significant because of the social questions it raises. But we may have to stop burying our heads and look at the statistics with an open mind.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    57. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, lack of correlation doesn't disprove causality.

      What correlation actually does is give you a good indication on where it could be of interest to look for underlying causes.

      Does red color actually make people more aggressive? Well, if you can't find any correlation then you just say no and move on. If you find a correlation it still doesn't prove anything but it could be of interest to find out if red paint in general contains more lead.

    58. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by u38cg · · Score: 1

      The men I know who work in fields like nursing or childcare do experience sexism, but it is ridiculous to suggest that their experience is comparable to that of women in many technology fields. As for "experiencing the exact same environment", what bullshit. Yes, they do. And they're on the receiving end. Congratulations on really not getting it.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    59. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly AGAINST my own experience. I have been working in technology (industrial automation and software development) for more than 20 years. I have had several (12 I can remember from the top of my head) female coleagues. NONE ever comented any such treatment, and all continue working today in the field. As far as I can tell (I have very good relation with most of them), they are very happy.

    60. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They experience that anywhere.

      Lets say that for a given level of "is a dick to women" there are 10% of men who are dicks to women.

      Lets say that in tech it's 95% male.

      In the population at large, 10% of women will get harrassed by the dicks, because they outnumber the dicks 10-1.

      In tech, you still have the same proportion of make dicks, but now the women get the full-time attention of one or two of the dicks.

      Not because there are more dicks in tech than normal, but because there are fewer women.

    61. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people like to define other people's perfectly acceptable behaviour as a problem, because it allows them to invent a special, more ethical, category for themselves. You're sexist because you've attributed a set of behaviour to just the male, it's also true that every female you've met at work has also measured your sexual attractiveness, using mostly stereotype.

      What you're doing here is beta male mating call, advertising 'protector' status via signalling over-control of sex drive. Missing, by portraying females as children in need of your care, that this is the exact the opposite of female desire.

    62. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's really insulting. It's also true. I'm a man in tech and I can vouch for the fact that 90% of my classmates and now my colleagues are immature, overgrown children, with deeply sexist and misogynist attitudes. I don't encounter this in other fields which don't have a gender imbalance, simply because in other fields, people have to be professional to keep their jobs. In our field, because we are in high demand, employers will overlook almost any negative to get the highly in-demand CS skills. So most devs, though they won't be promoted, can remain overgrown children all their careers, never having to learn to be polite or professional. In fact, there is an entrenched culture of not-giving-a-damn and of brilliant jerks with no social skills. Employers have simply come to expect so little of us in the way of professionalism. We learn, from HS and college on, that our skills excuse us for their behavior, and that it's OK to be sexist. There is a massive entrenched culture of jerkiness and sexism in tech, and until I fucking grew up, I was passively a part of it too. Devs ignore the rules of basic politeness all the time. They make sexist jokes or comments all the time. They treat women as curiosities or objects so fucking much it makes me fucking sick. They are so fucking elitist to people in other fields it's sick. If you are in tech and you don't see all this, you are part of the problem.

      I don't have an easy fix. I could spout a bunch of social stuff, but that takes time, I suspect the fix that will come sooner is commoditization of tech skills. Universities outside the West will catch up and there will be a lot of talented developers all over the world, and my kids will not see a 200k salary 5 years out of college, and they'll have to learn to be decent members of society.

    63. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by SplawnDarts · · Score: 1

      My question, very much in general, and not to troll, is: at what point people just get to do what they fancy?

      The instant you remove from them the political power to confiscate my money to provide a "safety net" in the event that their fancy proves economically untenable. In the absence of that change, I am sadly forced to care.

    64. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by rts008 · · Score: 1

      What about other fields? From what women, including my own wife and my mother, have told me, this stuff isn't a problem unique to nursing, it's a problem unique to female-dominated work environments.

      From the perspective of three different work environments:
      1.) construction work- it seems only the well suited 'tomboy' types even choose this vocation, and mostly do quite well. They fit in as 'one of the guys', and the gender difference rarely causes problems.

      2.) Military (US Army):
      similar to your wife's viewpoint.

      3.) Veterinary Medicine:
      Both genders are usually juggling too many wildcats to even have time for anything but the tasks (emphasis on the plural) on hand for this to be an issue in the workplace.

      BTW, the main problem with this type of discussion topic is that it is way too limited in scope to address the issue.

      What I mean by that is this:
      There are a lot of contributing factors that need to be addressed at the same time.
      Things like social conditioning, physiological diff's between men and women, psychological diff's, cultural and environmental factors, etc. all play a part in this equation.

      It's not like women are some alien species, they would simply like in a professional context to be judged on their capabilities and accomplishments rather than sexual attractiveness to male colleagues or bosses.

      To those with limited intellect, the opposite gender does seem like an alien species.
      As long as people are 'mate shopping' at the workplace, this type of behavior will likely continue. Thankfully, every time i've been tempted in the past to do this, common sense kicked in, and I've resisted the impulse.

      Men approach tasks and problem solving differently than women, and this point is the key to solving the problem, by learning to combine the approaches with the results exhibiting synergy, instead of discord and chaos.

      Oh, and on a personal note, ugly is, as ugly does, IMHO.
      I've seen a lot of attractive people that have become instantly, overpoweringly, butt-ugly just by opening their mouths and speaking! (or by deeds)

      Beauty is like a diamond gemstone to me. The attractiveness is caused by all of the sparkly facets combined with synergistic effect.
      Physical attraction is only one of the many facets, and not the most important one; unfortunately it seems to be the one most emphasized and sought after as a trophy.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    65. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The continue reporting of women in IT is getting tiresome. Consider that according to the latest statistics on nursing

      • There are 3,063,162 licensed registered nurses in the United States
      • Approximately 294,063 RNs are men – only 9.6% of the total nursing population.
      • Only 10.6% of all RNs are under the age of 30. The average age of the RN population in the United States is 46 years.
      • The median age for male RNs licensed in 2000 or later is 35, compared with 31 for female RNs.
      • Minorities:
        • Approximately 5.4% are Black or African American (non-Hispanic)
        • 5.5% are Asian (non-Hispanic)
        • 0.3% are Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic)
        • 3.6% are Hispanic or Latino
        • 0.3% are American Indian or Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic)
        • 1.7% categorize themselves as two or more races and non-Hispanic
        • Asian/Pacific Islander nurses are more likely than all other nurses to have at least baccalaureate preparation.
        • 14.6% of black nurses have master's or doctoral degrees, compared to 13.4% of Caucasian nurses.

      And we see the nursing field is just as skewed with regards gender and race, but rarely do we see regular reports about it. So why is all the focus on IT? Simple, the focus of these reports is only about job fields that are unbalanced with regards female participation. Take a look at teaching as well, how many men are there in elementary teacher positions? So heavily male dominated professions are pressured to recruit more women but heavily female dominated ones are not pressured the same way. Here's an idea, how about we stop all this BS and just let people do the damn jobs they want to do?

    66. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      2.) Military (US Army):
      similar to your wife's viewpoint.

      My wife was actually in the Air Force and ANG for a while, and mostly enjoyed the experience. Note, this was back in the 90s; she got out before Bush was elected, and things seem to have changed since then. She was more the "tomboy" type like you mention in point #1, and got along well with guys for the most part. There was one incident where a guy tried to rape her in some barracks, however; she stabbed him in the abdomen with her keys and fled, and never had any more problems with him. I'm not sure how he explained to the base doctor how he managed to sustain a serious puncture wound with keys like that.

      Oh, and on a personal note, ugly is, as ugly does, IMHO.
      I've seen a lot of attractive people that have become instantly, overpoweringly, butt-ugly just by opening their mouths and speaking! (or by deeds)

      Yes, a physically attractive person can quickly make themselves unattractive by acting like an ass. However, it doesn't work the other way. Someone who looks like Rosie O'Donnell or Roseanne Barr, no matter how wonderful a personality they have, is not going to seem highly attractive in a sexual way. You might be very happy to be friends with them, but taking them to bed generally requires a certain amount of physical attraction for most people.

    67. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Talderas · · Score: 1

      - Yes, at bars or restaurants. You don't have to be a drunk to go to a bar for 1-2 drinks once in a while

      Restaurants aren't places to meet people. There's rarely single people there, except at the bar (if it has one), and you don't walk up to women sitting alone at a table and ask to sit with them. And yes, the people who frequent bars usually are drunks. There is one exception: you'll sometimes find single non-drunk people sitting at the bar in a nice restaurant, eating actual food, but frequently these people are business travelers. That's fine if you want a one-night stand, but not so great for a relationship, since long-distance relationships almost never work out.

      I'm a single non-drunk person sitting at a bar in a nice restaurant which I assume means a business whose primary front would be a restaurant with a bar rather than a bar with a restaurant. I'm a business traveller only in the sense that I'm doing so on my way home from work. I am certainly an exception given the amount of time I've spent in restaurants. Your statement does echo rather true. The majority of single people I see are working at the restaurant and not patronizing it, well at least single people that I would consider at all within my age range (which means under 38). I think I see the occasional divorcee or widow but at a much older age.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    68. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question assumes that we are born with an innate set of wants that fully expresses itself independently of circumstance.

      Instead advertisement tells us that wants can be shaped and created, You are not doing what "you" want, except if with "you" you mean the entity shaped and created in part by a host of external influences, such as your peers judgements, advertisers, your education, etc.

      Your wants are a function of social context, and the social context for boys and girls is dramatically different, so their wants are different. But ehy are not necessarily in line with their personal expression.

    69. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by captainlavender · · Score: 1
      Hi,

      At least once a week, on slashdot, I see a comment so full of sexism or racism that it makes me want to cry. I keep coming back because the content is endlessly interesting, but almost every time I look into a discussion section someone has managed to turn it into how feminists hate men and the poor have welfare so they need to quit whining already -- even when the post is only distantly related to one of those topics. It's really a blow to my faith my humanity, which is especially what makes this comment such a thing of beauty. So, you know. Thank you.

      -a woman

    70. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by volpe · · Score: 1

      Statistics. That unforgiving bitch no one asked to be invited that tries to manipulate all of our lives.

      Statistics don't manipulate people - people manipulate people.

      I'm the ASA. And I vote.

    71. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      So, the evolution of heterosexuality is to blame? That could be a pretty big thing to try to engineer around. How about single-gender software teams?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    72. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the entire concept of cheerleading, where women in skimpy outfits parade and cheer the achievements of male atheletes?

      Funny, cheerleaders seem to think that they are participating in a real, difficult, and dangerous sport. You should probably refrain from publicly sharing ignorant opinions that make you seem like more of a sexist retard than you possibly are.

      And BTW, this is purely an American phenomenon. Asian/Indian and European women don't seem to be fazed by tech.

      They might not be fazed by it, but that doesn't mean that they are good at it. I have interviewed several underqualified female candidates with outlandish salary requirements for tech jobs. Most of these women were foreigners (i.e. non-USAians). In fact, a good chunk of them were from India or Pakistan. So if this really is "purely an American phenomenon" then you need to ask why are the smart women staying in their own countries and the dumb ones coming to the USA?

    73. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      This is America. We could spend a bajillion posts arguing over who is in what class because everybody is firmly convinced that they are middle class. You basically have to homeless before everyone agrees you aren't at least lower-middle.

      I suspect your redneck friends from Texas are very interested in how things work. Working class/lower class/whatchamacallit class lifestyles are very dependent on knowing a guy who can fix things cheap. And if you don't know roughly what he has to do you won't be able to figure out whether he's actually fixing your problem cheap, or just getting drunk on your $50.

      I also suspect that their kids in High School don't sign up for formal training in any of this stuff because it's not required, it costs extra money, and AP classes are something Mitt Romney would do. Up North rednecks have generally gerrymandered themselves into school districts that offer very few of these classes, largely because they don't want to pay the level of taxation that's required when you share a school district with people who freak that the little bastard agreed to a Gym class that's NOT AP, and will therefore BRING HIS GPA DOWN, thusly RUINING HIS LIFE FOREVER.

    74. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by j-beda · · Score: 1

      There is also a well established effect that in a hostile environment, people who are part of a minority in that environment have a greater tendency to equate troubles they might be having with feelings of inability. On the other hand, those in the majority are more likely to equate troubles they might be having with feeling that the field is inherently challenging. It is the difference between receiving a low grade and saying "I must be stupid" vs saying "This is a tough course".

    75. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by strikethree · · Score: 1

      When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed?

      The world is not so black and white. There are females where I work. As far as the job is concerned, I evaluate them strictly on their knowledge and abilities. As far as their looks are concerned, I evaluate them strictly on their, well, looks.

      I am an animal. You can deny that you are an animal and try to get rid of all the animals in the world... but I think you will eventually find yourself very lonely because all of us are animals.

      My outwards behaviour is controlled by the thinking part of my brain. My inward behavior is a random mesh of impulses caused by who knows what. Sex drive is certainly a strong one. Internally, all women are evaluated for their potential suitability for the mating process but you seem to imply that this is controllable. It is not. What is controllable is the outward behavior.

      I control mine. Do you control yours?

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    76. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that youtube-video was a textbook example of straw-man argument, and one with an obvious production budget behind it. Almost like some large insurance company was spending money on trying to convince people that health insurance reform was a bad idea or something....

    77. Re:This is the AP Comp Sci exam by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Wow, your A/C refutation did. . .nothing. Chiefly because, while not precise (the video is, after all, an analogy) it works. And well. Phoning in a 'straw man' accusation is unimpressive.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  6. People are different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ... and have different interests and capacities, this results in differences which people with political agendas perceive as 'gaps' and not as simply people naturally having different interests and being different from each other.

    1. Re:People are different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh jeez, Mexican-Americans don't have a greater "interest" or "capacity" in being fruit pickers or short-order cooks, any more than Chinese people of 50 years ago were subsistence farmers because they were limited by some innate "interest" or "capacity." Groups find themselves disproportionately in certain kind of jobs based on circumstances.

      The people who want to maintain the status quo and downplay societal unfairness are the ones with the political agenda.

      -smafti

    2. Re:People are different... by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt anyone who matters wants to keep ethnic minorities or women out of tech sector. There is lots and lots of money in tech sector, and only reason there isnt more is because of the constant shortage of qualified tech heads. Industry needs more engineers, programmers, etc and industry really doesnt care whats between the legs or what color the skin is.

      In european culture space cultural heritage keeps women out of tech secor, planting dolls and expectations of housewifery to girl heads early in the game

      I guess other culture spaces have similar baggage.

      This is basically cultural rudiment from middle ages, and its really hard to change, no matter how obviously harmful it is.

    3. Re:People are different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, malnutrition, under-stimulation and other impediments to learning ARE more prevalent in certain racial populations than others. This is not because one race is inherently better than another, but is a result of racial prejudice, discrimination, and cultural norms. Sadly this is self-reenforcing, a lack of education and learning from malnutrition, and learning disorders makes it much more likely that you will feed your children poorly, live in environments that encourage learning disorders and perpetuate the problems for another generation.

      This is exactly the problem affirmative action and other social engineering systems seek to address.

  7. here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its 2014, not 1992.. Why must we try so hard to get women to work in tech? I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech. Maybe they just don't want to. Just putting that out there. I'd love to see more women in tech, but don't brainwash someone into it.

    1. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech.

      Then why are women so much less likely to enter CS than men? If there's no disproportionate influence, why is there a disproportionate response?

    2. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for computer science instead of humanities. I told that I like computer science better. His answer: "you know, some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities." It was NOT after failed test or anything like that. It was in the beginning of school year and he knew nothing about me.

      How many boys got asked stupid questions like that? Girls can pick up that they are not supposed to be interested in these things soon enough. We are supposed to be clueless and kids are good in picking up such clues.

    3. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Probably for the same reason that women are capable of breast feeding while men aren't. They are not equal. Equality under the law does not, should not, and never will mean that men and women are actually the same.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    4. Re:here we go again... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because we want to get the best people. If you look worldwide, the gender balance (to pick the one imbalance your post mentions) is a lot closer to 50:50 in some countries, in others it's even more skewed. This implies that there's nothing intrinsic about women that makes them genetically less likely to want to do engineering or scientific things, there's some other cultural or social pressure stopping most of them. If we're only recruiting from 10% of the female population that, absent these pressures, would have gone into these subjects, then we can hope that it's the best 10%, but that's not very likely.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you think a biological factor is pushing women away from tech? Care to suggest what it might be? It seems simpler to me that the culture surrounding the tech industry is male-centric, rather than women are biologically hard-wired to avoid something that didn't exist for 99.9% of history.

    6. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think there is a high likelihood that the differing brain structure and soup of hormones/other chemicals their brains swim in may play a significant role, yes. Throwing out from consideration a known variable before the experiment because you don't want it to be true is extremely poor science.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    7. Re:here we go again... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if there are articles on fashion industry sites lamenting the lack of heterosexual males in the fashion industry.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:here we go again... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I had a college prof who used to tell freshmen and sophomore programmers that clearly had no acumen in the field (male and female both) that they needed to find a new major. It was harsh, but he was usually right.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our brains.
      We're not wired the same way, that's one of the biological factors. Men's range of what constitutes a fine way to spend their professional life is more likely to include the horrific crunch conditions of development and programming. Half of the women in the HR cube farm where my brother works? Verbal sniping is as friendly and teamworky as you can hope to get them. They're gone at ten to five, take a supervisor aside to try and get another in trouble about once a day, and projects miss deadlines because preparing something for someone else just means they might succeed instead of you.

      Men are more likely to, day by day, view a bit of overtime (if even paid more for it) as acceptable, even at the cost of time with children and loved ones. So can women, but more of us view this as a bum deal. Because it usually is unless you're getting time and a half as a blue-collar.

    10. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for computer science instead of humanities. I told that I like computer science better. His answer: "you know, some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities." It was NOT after failed test or anything like that. It was in the beginning of school year and he knew nothing about me.

      And if a daughter of mine came home from school with a story like that, I'd have been all over it, asking why teachers are discouraging somebody from taking a class about something that the student indicated a preference for. What difference should it make how good other may be compared to how hard the course might be for somebody else? Some of the people in humanities could also be very good too... should they also be discouraged from taking that class as well simply on that premise? Sure, it's definitely possible that it might not interest you as much as you had hoped in the beginning, but you'd learn that over the year as you took the class. What kind of basis would a teacher use for deciding that a student was liable to change their mind about how much interest they had in a subject when they plainly said that they liked it?

      I'd be expecting an apology from that teacher to be delivered to my daughter the following day, or else I'd be wanting to see that teacher fired.

      Wow.... just wow. How *DARE* that teacher suggest that you wouldn't be any good or have any significant interest in computer science just because you happen to have ovaries.

    11. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      A couple of key points to consider.... the first being that such a recommendation is infinitely more acceptable in college than it is in high school, and the second being that even in college, such a recommendation would generally come from that person's academic historical record, which was not the case in the above person's anecdote.

    12. Re:here we go again... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Why don't you go and read some articles and find out?

      And yes there (a) are heterosexual men in the fashion industry and (b) there is a social pressure which reduces the number. This is not a good thing.

      But this is a tech website not a fashion one, so we tend to discuss issues relevant ot the tech world.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it were hormones, shouldn't the effect be very consistent across nations and states?

      Looking at stats for high-school courses in my country, Australia, only 7% of the people who did software design the HSC were women, whereas in the US it's 20%. Do American women have less female sex hormones than Australian women? How come 29% of participants were female in Tennessee but only 3% in Utah? Are women from Utah ten times more feminine than women from Tennessee?

      According to the UK GCSE results, 40% of the 53,000 UK students who did ICT in 2012 were female, and they achieved a higher average grade than their male counterparts. If hormones were the deciding factor, British girls ought to be growing beards. (Source: www.jcq.org.uk/Download/examination-results/gcses/gcse)

      Since the results are so inconsistent between what ought to be hormonally similar groups, I think we can safely dismiss hormones as the primary factor. The difference in culture between the various states and nations is much better at accounting for the massive variability in female enrollment in computing courses.

    14. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason there's so many fewer men in teaching and healthcare?

    15. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Which would be a valid point were it not a strawman argument. Significant != primary. There likely isn't even a primary cause with as many factors as there are to take into consideration.

      It is extremely difficult to isolate a variable in living human beings' behavior yet you want to completely discount actual physical and chemical difference in the one organ that controls all decision making. That is willful blindness at best and at worst outright politically motivated fraud.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    16. Re:here we go again... by Velex · · Score: 0

      What if those pressures are things that we're supposed to consider good such as welfare programs?

      Would you still want to eliminate them?

      In some of those countries where things are close to 50-50, womyn-born-womyn aren't protected from genital mutilation. Does that mean it's finally time to implement the American Academy of Pediatric's 2010 idea to legitimize the practice over here, too?

      Yes, there are cultural reasons womyn-born-womyn avoid certain careers. I wonder how that would change if we took away entitlement programs that allow them to live the same lifestyle while working minimum wage (or not at all) they would otherwise have to work those careers to earn?

      I mean, hell. Tell a womyn-born-womyn that she needs to afford her own birth control, and you've got a major political party trying to claim that's somehow basic healthcare.

      We need to stop privileging womyn-born-womyn. We need to start telling them "tough shit, now get a job."

      The only reason this wouldn't work is because men are ok with supporting a wife who doesn't have a career. Men would need to be ok with seeing a woman starve and taking her child from her the same way they're ok with seeing a man starve and taking his child from him.

      Otherwise it looks like 10% is all you get. Not all womyn-born-womyn are the same, but boy howdy that must be something else to grow up knowing that having children isn't something you'll need to fight for and then realize that all you really need to do to become a Mother and get a Room of One's Own is to sleep with a guy who's had one too many beers. Thanks to feminism, nobody will think less of you, and they'll actually see you as the victim! Your parents will love you for giving them grandchildren! Nobody cares what's wrong here!

      Hell, I've met womyn-born-womyn who have done this very intentionally and with guidance from their Mothers about how to sign up for all the best entitlements from sugar daddy government.

      Welfare queens are real; it's just that their skin color is white so you don't mind and look the other way. Let's stop pretending that womyn-born-womyn are victims and start holding them accountable for their choices.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    17. Re:here we go again... by Bengie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Females show an adverse reaction to "tech" as early as 1 day old. Are you saying newborns have had time to be influenced? Show a newborn female a doll, and they are interested because it has a face. Show them toy car and they couldn't care less. Show a newborn boy a doll, and it's less interested, show it a car and it wants to grab and hold it.

      Actually, this is linked with testosterone levels during development. Females that had a mother with higher testosterone levels exhibited similar rates of wanting the car over the doll, and visa versa for boys. Guess which gender on average has higher testosterone levels?

      Other surveys, that have gone over many many years and over the top 40 countries, have found that interest levels in tech for women is nearly identical in every country, unaffected by culture. The rate of women actually in tech drastically varies, but many of those women don't enjoy it, they're only in it because they were pushed into it.

      Isn't this the polar opposite of our current issue? We argue that maybe more women would be in tech if we encouraged them. It turns out to be the opposite. They don't want to be in it, but if they are, it's because they were forced into it. The optimal percentage of women in tech should be about the same as the percentage that are interested in it.

    18. Re:here we go again... by xigxag · · Score: 2

      From 1965 to now, the percentage of women in US medical school, which is a likewise high-training high-commitment-level field as CS, jumped from 10% to about 50%. What changed? Societal attitudes. Not brain chemistry.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    19. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you are primarily an idiot or troll but either way I pity you if you believe what you wrote.

    20. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      Which would be a valid point if we were arguing about this in 1965.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    21. Re:here we go again... by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      Education should weed out the weak. If someone is intimidated when they are told that a class is hard rather than excited they don't belong there. That teacher was probably sick of girls wasting his time taking the class because they think it makes them sound interesting rather than because they are interested

    22. Re:here we go again... by dontbemad · · Score: 1

      I mean, for what it is worth, I knew plenty of males who experienced that exact same situation. Except without being able to pull the ovary card, all they figured was that the teacher just inherently didn't appreciate STEM fields.

      This just in: teachers possess biases about what fields they think are best. News at 11.

    23. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we want to get the best people. If you look worldwide, the gender balance (to pick the one imbalance your post mentions) is a lot closer to 50:50 in some countries, in others it's even more skewed.

      [citation needed]

      Your assertion isn't enough. The Scandinavian countries for example... have been running campaigns for years that actively penalise men wanting to go into certain tech/sci fields. All in order to get more women into them.

      It didn't work. The percentages shifted a bit.. .but it has never gotten more than about 20%.. even with blatant anti-male, pro-female programmes.

      Frankly, there's fuck all evidence that this sort of thing works - BECAUSE - there's no discrimination (SHOCK!) against women. They don't choose those fields because they aren't interested.

      I know.. I know.. I'll get your fainting couch so you don't bang your delicate little head when you crash to the ground in shock. All that crap about women being victims - it turns out not to be true.

    24. Re:here we go again... by Velex · · Score: 1

      Well, you'd need to explain why then trans women do just fine in tech careers and why in other places womyn-born-womyn are doing ok as well.

      Does the brain have a gender? Yes. However, it has nothing to do with ability or preference for one career or another. I can also tell you firsthand that the estrogen/testosterone thing is a complete and utter red herring.

      You're looking in the wrong place in your attempt to be scientific. It's much more subtle than one chemical that gives you soft skin and another chemical that helps you build muscle.

      Look at all the privileges womyn-born-womyn have.

      If you could start a family with no means to provide for it, then run out on the person you had sex with to make the baby, get custody of the child practically by default (especially if you use the R word), and then live a middle class lifestyle going between minimum wage jobs, why would you want to screw yourself up with something as complex and difficult like tech and science? For what, especially when you're now a class of person that we view as infallible: a Mother?

      That's just one example, but a pretty big one.

      For example, in places womyn-born-womyn are at 50-50, genital mutilation is also a 50-50 industry from what I understand.

      Maybe we need to start making womyn-born-womyn as expendable as assigned males are over here.

      I'd also like to respond to another of your comments:

      It is extremely difficult to isolate a variable in living human beings' behavior yet you want to completely discount actual physical and chemical difference in the one organ that controls all decision making. That is willful blindness at best and at worst outright politically motivated fraud.

      The problem is you're wrong. These things create differences, but these things do not create the differences we're looking at.

      If they did, switching from testosterone to estrogen would change a person's entire personality or set of interests instead of just making it a little easier for them to cry. Trans folks would be utterly unable to fit into their assigned gender at all, although I'm not sure if that would be a good or bad thing. The things that do emerge in a child's behavior that don't match what's expected of his or her assigned gender are easy to overlook to the point of denial or humiliate and beat out at any rate. We also tend to have confirmation bias when somebody does something that we consider gendered.

      Womyn-born-womyn would be getting into tech and science careers, but they need similar motivations to why a guy gets into these careers: he needs an income to support himself regardless of his interest or lack of interest.

      What feminism and womyn-born-womyn have essentially done is to take the argument that since they're physically weaker and because they carry children, that they should be protected to an absurd level. When a womyn-born-womyn fails, look how we try to find somebody else to blame. When an assigned male fails, look at how quickly we are to blame him.

      We're ok with homeless men. We aren't ok at all with homeless womyn-born-womyn. Why? Because feminism has so coupled the womyn-born-womyn with babies and destroyed the role of the father that we can't imagine doing anything else other than giving a womyn-born-womyn with a child entitlements. Far be it for us to even question what she was possibly thinking when she was sleeping with a guy without protection, without any way to support a baby, and without any intention of abortion.

      Well, I can tell you what I've overheard straight from womyn-born-womyn: they were thinking $$$. Womyn-born-womyn aren't stupid.

      That's a bit more powerful to think about than armchair pontifications about estrogen and testosterone.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    25. Re:here we go again... by xigxag · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That remark doesn't even begin to make sense as a rebuttal. If we were arguing about this in 1965, "from 1965 to now" would only be 1965's data, and not two generations worth of data proving that women have the capacity to succeed in a mentally demanding profession.

      The point is that women have made tremendous strides in the past 50 years a field where it was previously thought they had an innate deficit. Their innate deficit was shown to be a canard, a just-so story to justify keeping them out of professional fields. In the US, the gender ratio in medical fields has made great changes, but not so in tech. Yet in some other countries, both genders are well-represented in tech. How does your "brain structure" argument account for that kind national-level disparity?

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    26. Re: here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a new father I can tell that you don't know anything about newborns. That grabbing you talk about is just flailing arms. They can't make the distinction between a doll and a car for quote some time.

    27. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see the data for this. Because what I remember says that all babies are very interested in faces. They are also interested in anything that is "interesting", i.e. unusual, not the way they expect something. The kind of difference you mentioned I have never heard about, so I am fairly skeptical about that claim.

    28. Re:here we go again... by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      I got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for [A] instead of [B]. ... How many boys got asked stupid questions like that?

      A lot.

      After multiple confrontations with the teacher in 8th grade science then nearly flunking 9th grade science, when starting 10th grade I did not want to take Biology, I wanted to take Physics. The questions started with "Why" (because I like physics) and went thru "There will not be any other sophomores in the class", "physics is a much harder class" and "It's too hard for sophomores" to "Every sophomore takes Biology" and "You have to take Biology" (the requirements did NOT say that), ending with "It may set you back, but you can take it if you get the teacher's permission." I got the teacher's permission, was the only sophomore in the class, got an 'A', and never did take high school Biology.

      Now if a female gets asked "why" and does not have a good answer for herself, or chooses not to insist/persist, the real question is why did she give up? While the teacher may have been wrong, the problem did not begin with the teacher.

    29. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      If they did, switching from testosterone to estrogen would change a person's entire personality or set of interests instead of just making it a little easier for them to cry.

      Untrue. Neural pathway development that has taken place under one set of conditions is not instantly overwritten by changing the conditions.

      As for the rest, TG are possibly a valuable dataset but not an especially easy one to study as they've already shown one significant and poorly understood aberration from the norm. Also, I find it difficult to take you seriously if you find simple gender nomenclature offensive; it does not speak well of your ability to accept what is over what you wish to be.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    30. Re:here we go again... by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

      I thought it did. Your line of reasoning implies the claim that social inertia in the tech field is vastly higher than in the medical field. My reply was meant to convey that I understood what you were saying as well as my skepticism.

      --
      Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
    31. Re:here we go again... by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      Not gonna lie, I saw that you misspelled women and immediately ceased to take you seriously. Hope you're a troll.

    32. Re:here we go again... by lgw · · Score: 2

      No one is going to take seriously anything you write using the word "womyn". At first I just assumed you were trolling, but you seem to be in earnest - no troll would blend ridiculous notions from the left with ridiculous notions from the right into the same post, that's just poor trollmanship.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:here we go again... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      In the countries with 50:50 splits, women do engineering jobs because they pay well, not because they want to. Don't mix up wanting and having. Across countries, the ratio of women and men who want to do engineering is identical. This means a biological factor that surpasses even culture.

    34. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be expecting an apology from that teacher to be delivered to my daughter the following day

      Yeah! How dare a teacher point out realities to a student! The nerve of some people! Trying to make sure students know what they are signing up for or are serious about tackling a challenging subject... sheez!

    35. Re: here we go again... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      A "flailing" of arms with a high bias, depending on gender and the object being presented. If it was random, then it shouldn't have had a strong bias.

    36. Re:here we go again... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I got asked by the teacher why did I want to go for computer science instead of humanities. I told that I like computer science better. His answer: "you know, some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities." It was NOT after failed test or anything like that. It was in the beginning of school year and he knew nothing about me.

      You could be a male with an education major and be asked, "why, because you're a pedophile?"

    37. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical helicopter parent nonsense. There are people in the world who will discourage your special flower. They will have to deal with this at some point. Getting some slob of a public school teacher fired for advice that would net your kid more competitive grades while applying to college is not the righteous way out.

    38. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you gave every woman who took this test $1 million, then more women than men would take the test. So obviously circumstances beyond biological can make an impact and on reasonable person is disagreeing with that. You are pretending as though the GP in that case would conclude that giving women 1$ million to take the test would also make them grow beards. You are attacking a straw man.

    39. Re:here we go again... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      " If you look worldwide, the gender balance (to pick the one imbalance your post mentions) is a lot closer to 50:50 in some countries"

      Really? I'd genuinely like to see a link that supports that statement in tech fields or even in the sciences.

      --
      -Styopa
    40. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He asked you a QUESTION? Boo hoo.
      Should have sued him.
      If you can work anti-Semitism angle there, it's a sure win.

      Sometimes people have silly presumptions, their problem.

    41. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      What "reality"? This proclamation was made by a teacher who did not yet have any reason to think that student would not be any good at the subject. It was high school, for chrissake. And of course, even if the teacher *DID* have a reason for thinking that, then the teacher would not have had any reason to ask her why she wanted to take the course in the first place, he just would have pointed out that given her record, it wasn't the wisest use of her time, and why she might happen to want to take the course is irrelevant, only leading to the justly deserved speculation that the teacher was showing gender-based discrimination.

    42. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is you're wrong. These things create differences, but these things do not create the differences we're looking at.

      You don't know that. Neither do I and neither does anyone. The research that would be necessary to support or refute your position is considered politically unacceptable, so you, like all of us, have no basis for your beliefs.

      If they did, switching from testosterone to estrogen would change a person's entire personality or set of interests instead of just making it a little easier for them to cry.

      That doesn't follow. Animals who grow up in darkness are unable to use their eyes. Animals who spend time in darkness after they mature can use their eyes just fine once the light returns. Bodies and brains are affected by their past. If I were to use the same kind of straw man to attack your position, I'd say that environment doesn't matter because if you put a nurse in a businessperson's clothes the nurse doesn't suddenly start obsessing over stock prices. Which is just as ridiculous an argument as the one you just made.

      Besides, trans people are not very useful as a way to study these things because they are already not like their original gender in that they wish to become the other gender (with whatever biological correlate that may have) and the transformation that happens is not complete - they don't become biologically 100% like the gender they transition into. So I don't know why you think you can draw any conclusions from that.

      If you want to consider the difference between nurses and businesspeople, don't start looking at the subset of nurses who desperately desire to become businesspeople and then made the transition to be part time businesspeople.

    43. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know political over-correctness scaremongering beats science, but women do have other brain structure in few aspects, that also includes inherited predisposition for some things.
      One known example is that women brain (usually) can multi-task better.

      Of course it doesn't mean that no women can overcome weaknesses,
      or that statistical predispositions of women are worse then of statistical male brain (putting other differences outside).

      If he just said some stuff then you can simply prove him wrong / or prove you're an exception.

    44. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Sure... when a teacher actually has a record of previous academic history that indicates such. The above poster said that the teacher who said this to her did not have any such information...And really, if the teacher *DID* have such information, then why the girl wanted to take computer science would have been irrelevant, and that information should have been cited as the basis for such discouragement instead of "some guys going for computer science are very good". Even at best, and ignoring the gender biased nature of the comment, how good other people are is going to be immaterial to how good she was going to be. If he had a better reason, he should have used it instead of spouting data that only suggests he was discriminating against her based on the fact that the student was not male.

    45. Re:here we go again... by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      The gener ratio in tech industry is ridiculous. Claiming "I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech" makes no sense. Do you seriously think gender dictates your ability and willingness to understand technology? No - it most deffinetly doesnt, its a cultural bias. One that is "brainwashed" into children very early and continues throughout life. Just think about what are toys for girls and what are toys to boys, there are no hello kitty robots on shop shelves. Girls get fluffy plushies and barbies, boys get toy robots, cars whatnot, tell me this is not an obvious gender bias in technology. Women dont want to work in tech sector because they have been dissuaded from it all their lives, all the way down to "let the man in the house change the lightbulb". This is a huge waste of humanities resources.

    46. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      But in such a case, a teacher is discouraging a student from pursuing that choice based on actual academic history... not how well somebody else is liable to do at it. Look again at the teacher's response. It reads as total sexual discrimination.

    47. Re:here we go again... by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      "Education should weed out the weak" - true, but based on results, not a look in the face.

    48. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      My point is that how good other people might be at a subject should not be a factor for discouraging them from studying it at a high school level.... pay attention to what the teacher said in his response.

    49. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. When people start arguing on both sides of the aisle (need to get more women into male-dominated fields, and need to get more men into female-dominated fields), then I'll listen to your arguments about why it needs to happen. Until then, the "problem" is not worth taking seriously.

      Actually, I'll even accept an argument about why we don't need to get men into female-dominated fields, as long as it doesn't break down into "men get all the breaks, therefore fuck you".

    50. Re: here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then perhaps you could provide a citation?

    51. Re:here we go again... by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      Then why are women so much less likely to enter CS than men? If there's no disproportionate influence, why is there a disproportionate response?

      Maybe a generalization, but from what I've seen it is because clever women usually go to the field where there is actually work for them (such as the medical profession) and not claimed 'shortages'. Young men study computing/advanced maths/particle physics because it is interesting and are left without a job upon graduation.

    52. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can check his posting history, Velex similar things about "womyn-born-womyn" on a lot of articles/threads that deal with sexism. He seems to have a serious grudge against women in general.

    53. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not GP but if it makes you feel better, I looked at your post and judged you as someone that can't be taken seriously

    54. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Do American women have less female sex hormones than Australian women?

      Yes. For example, the Williams sisters.

    55. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The problem wasn't with the question, per se... Lots of people might be asked why they want to take a course. The main problem was with his response to her claim that she wanted to take it because she liked it more than humanities*, that is "some guys going for computer science are very good. It would be easier for you in humanities."

      What was fundamentally inappropriate about the teacher's comment was that, if this person's story is an accurate assessment of the incident, he was discouraging the girl from even bothering to try before they evidently had any information to suggest that it would not really be worth the student's time. If they *DID* have such information, then the teacher should have framed his response in that context, not suggesting that it wouldn't be a good idea just because others in the program are very good at it, because leaving gender outside of the issue entirely, how good others may be is superfluous to how good she might become, if she were permitted to pursue it. The fact that his response included a heavily implied reference to gender strongly suggests unprofessional sexual discrimination, and made his remark doubly inappropriate.

      *And to be perfectly frank, liking a course more than another is an entirely rational justification for wanting to take that course... it still might turn out that a person isn't very good at it, but that's not generally likely to be the case that they realize this yet until they've at least actually given it a try. Remember, this is about the first day of classes in high school... not at a college or university where they are more likely to have a clearer picture of where a student stands academically in the first place, and where they are likely to succeed or fail.

    56. Re:here we go again... by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      >there are no hello kitty robots on shop shelves
      And we need to fix that. It's about time Kitty and Keropi and whatnot start joining Super Robot Wars.

    57. Re:here we go again... by russotto · · Score: 2

      How come 29% of participants were female in Tennessee but only 3% in Utah? Are women from Utah ten times more feminine than women from Tennessee?

      If you were American, you'd probably have an idea what the issue is in Utah immediately. (and this time it really is societal pressure)

    58. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, let me propose an alternative hypothesis: Of those 10% of the female population, 8% are the ones with aptitude for CS, 2% are posers like the 90% of the men in CS/IT have no aptitude for CS/IT. This should be obvious to the 10% of people in CS or IT that see that the other 90% are incompetent space-fillers. Unfortunately this means the other 90% will not see the reality of the situation, so if we follow a democratic process, we just end up with things getting worse.

      The sad reality is not that not enough competent females are being selected for careers in IT, but that far too many incompetent males are being selected in spite of their incompetence. I guess this could be because of assertiveness or it could be an example of herd mentality.

    59. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trollwomynship

    60. Re:here we go again... by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Yeah I don't think anyone is going to deny that one.

    61. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Cowboy coder.

      Now go sit in a corner.

    62. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I got similar questions from all of my English teachers (English is the third language we learned in my region, and I was very good at it), and pretty much every elder in my family told me that hightech sucks and I should go for medicine or law.

      Society is retarded, but that shouldn't stop anybody from studying what they want.

    63. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this my entire life from 7th grade. "Why do you want to take Geometry now? Why do you want to take Physics or Calculus or whatever now? These are hard classes you know, meant for older students". But then I had teachers who always suggested for me to try the next level.

      But the difference is, as usual, an emotional one. 9th grade girls, for hormonal reasons vs 9th grade boys, are less confrontational and more sensitive to things that are perceived as insults. Women may fight among themselves with a psychological brutality men can't match, but they are, for whatever reason, far more sensitive and far less willing to argue.

      What does this mean? It means a teacher who says a girl can't do X because she is a girl will take it to heart more than a guy who hears the same thing. If you are a teacher, especially at those ages, it is your responsibility to moderate your message to your listener, not the other way around. We except kids are not completely culpable because they make dumb decisions based on poor analysis of the situation.

      I say both for my experiences and the girl above, the teachers are the problem.

    64. Re:here we go again... by dabadab · · Score: 1

      Who the fuck moderated this up?

      Everyone who has ever seen a newborn could see that this is utter bullshit: newborns' vision is not really functioning and they do not make any conscious movement, that only comes months later.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    65. Re:here we go again... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Females show an adverse reaction to "tech" as early as 1 day old.

      This is clearly bullshit. Babies are not even aware that there are other beings in the world until they are about a week old, let alone "tech". They survive purely on instinct. They never used their eyes before, can only just recognize enough of their mothers to feed and feel secure.

      Do you have a citation stating otherwise?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re:here we go again... by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Medicine and Law is fat better paid on average than tech - it might be that bright females take a look at the ROI and chose on that basis.

    67. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Females show an adverse reaction to "tech" as early as 1 day old. Are you saying newborns have had time to be influenced? Show a newborn female a doll, and they are interested because it has a face. Show them toy car and they couldn't care less. Show a newborn boy a doll, and it's less interested, show it a car and it wants to grab and hold it.

      This is nonsense

    68. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not a term he made up see womyn-born-womyn

    69. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a teacher discourage me from PreAlgebra in Middle School. I found out the hard way that Algebra was easy.

      It's okay though. She'll die broken and alone.

    70. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we want to get the best people. If you look worldwide, the gender balance (to pick the one imbalance your post mentions) is a lot closer to 50:50 in some countries, in others it's even more skewed. This implies that there's nothing intrinsic about women that makes them genetically less likely to want to do engineering or scientific things, there's some other cultural or social pressure stopping most of them. If we're only recruiting from 10% of the female population that, absent these pressures, would have gone into these subjects, then we can hope that it's the best 10%, but that's not very likely.

      Your thesis that gender is largely acculturated and explains the gender gap in computer science has some merit:

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130522180319.htm

      In the United States, girls had higher levels of self-regulation than boys. Self-regulation is defined as children's ability to control their behavior and impulses, follow directions, and persist on a task. It has been linked to academic performance and college completion, in past studies by Oregon State University researchers.

      In three Asian countries, the gender gap in the United States was not found when researchers directly assessed the self-regulation of 3-6 year olds. The results appear in the new issue of the journal Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

      "These findings suggest that although we often expect girls to be more self-regulated than boys, this may not be the case for Asian children," said Shannon Wanless, lead author of the study.

      Wanless began conducting the research during her doctoral studies at Oregon State University under Megan McClelland, an associate professor in OSU's Hallie E. Ford Center for Healthy Children and Families. Wanless is now on the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh.

      One interesting part of the researcher's findings: Although there were no gender differences in self-regulation when the children were directly assessed using a variety of school-readiness tasks, teachers in Asia perceived girls as performing better on self-regulation even when they actually performed equally to boys.

      "Teachers are rating children's behavior in the classroom environment, which has a lot of distractions and is very stimulating," Wanless said. "It is possible that boys in the Asian countries were able to self-regulate as well as girls when they were in a quiet space (the direct assessment), but were not able to regulate themselves as well in a bustling classroom environment (teacher ratings)."

      In addition, McClelland said cultural expectations of girls' behavior versus that of their male peers may be influencing teachers' assessments.

      "In general, there is more tolerance for active play in boys than in girls," McClelland said. "Girls are expected to be quiet and not make a fuss. This expectation may be coloring some teachers' perceptions."

      The researchers conducted assessments with 814 children in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea and China. Their study showed that U.S. girls had significantly higher self-regulation than boys, but there were no significant gender differences in any Asian societies. In addition, for both genders, directly assessed and teacher-rated self-regulation were related to many aspects of school readiness in all societies for girls and boys.

      Computer science in North America has apparently become a self-reinforcing Bro culture with cultural gatekeepers zealously guarding the locker room from all outsiders.

    71. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which countries, and how does it correlate to 'gender equality'.

      E.g. Norway, one of the most gender equal countries has larger discrepancies in gender participation of subjects than when they started the process of 'equalising'. In Norway this is known as the gender equality paradox. (Engineering 90% male, medicine 90% female). The reasoning is that a lack of gender roles allows people more choice, which they take on gendered lines, males affected by testosterone in the womb choosing to work with systems and females with people.

      http://vimeo.com/19707588

      This is a survey of 200,000 people across 53 cultures:

      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-008-9380-7

      - Lippa, R. A.. Sex differences in personality traits and gender-related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-environmental theories.

    72. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feminists and social justice warriors have invented an entire jargon to try and validate their stupidity. It doesn't work and as seen here it makes them sound like fucking morons.

    73. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My principal told me that I should be in graphic arts and design rather than programming, because I was so sociable, I'd hate to be walled up in a dark room in front of a black monitor displaying green text all day.

      I'm a dude.

      You shouldn't take offense for people just because they have ovaries. It's demeaning.

    74. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were American, you'd probably have an idea what the issue is in Utah immediately.

      Well, let's assume we need to spell it out for him:
      A higher percentage of Utah women work outside the home than the national average.
      Only in the last 15 years have males overtaken females in the workplace in Utah, primarily due to the influx of Hispanic males
      Roughly 84 percent of Utah healthcare support occupations are held by women

      What were you trying to get at? That UT has "issues" with women working in healthcare and not in IT?

    75. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      I can't believe this was modded to +5. Maybe the fact that Slashdot moderators actually believe this is evidence of bias in the tech sector.

    76. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The problem is not with the question, really... it's with how the teacher responded when the student answered the question, that is, the teacher suggested that humanities would be eaiser for the student on the basis that "some of the guys who are in computer science are very good". Even if you exclude gender from his response, how good other people are in a subject is immaterial to how good that particular student could become, and it was entirely inappropriate to be discouraging a high school student (not college or university student) from studying a subject that they are interested in so that they *CAN* get good at it. The fact that his remark contained a not-so-subtle gender biased reference makes it doubly inappropriate.

    77. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are doing a disservice to yourself by identifying gender with only the sex organs, like feminazis like to do. "Why does a man think he can do X better just because he has a PENIS" - "Why can a woman not do X just because she has a VAGINA/UTERUS/OVARIES". A man is not stronger physically because he has a penis. A woman does not have more flexibility because of the vagina. The IQ difference is not due to the ovaries. Sometimes I wonder about this obsessive fixation with the penis and sex organs in feminists.

      As for your reaction, it is a classic helicopter parent case, where if someone says something you dont like you're all over him to "protect your baby" from anything you consider harmful. While some inquiry with the teacher may be worthwhile, I'd suggest that the bulk of your energy be directed at teaching your daughter about the world, that not everyone is there to help you succeed and indeed some people will have a lower opinion of you - which should just make her resolve stronger.

    78. Re:here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless he/she is trolling EVERYONE, in which case he/she is still an asshole!

    79. Re:here we go again... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The problem, as I have stated above, is in how the teacher responded to the student's answer... without evidently knowing anything else about the student, she was sumarily recommended for humanities beecause it should be "easier", only because "some guys going for computer science are very good". Even ignoring the gender bias, how good other people may be is entirely immaterial to how good another person could become at the subject, as long as they are given equal opportunity to try and succeed. The fact that the remark contained a strong gender bias that was implied makes the remark doubly inappropriate.

  8. What I tell kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Forget the computer science - go for the biology and other hard sciences.

    I have yet to hear of a hospital that offshored their medical staff or lobbied for H1-Bs.

    I have never heard of any medical establishment saying, "There are no qualified Americans."

    Funny. I guess all the smart Americans are going into medical.

    Oh yeah, and in medical I have never heard any one say that "if you're over 30, you just don't get it."

    1. Re:What I tell kids. by ruir · · Score: 1

      The thing is IT workers are seen as white collar jobs/glorified secretaries and firms resent having to paying them wages as very qualified workers.

    2. Re:What I tell kids. by oscrivellodds · · Score: 1

      I apologize for the formatting- for some reason the comment editor ignores my attempts to break things into paragraphs even though I have selected the appropriate options... I was an EE for 22 years, worked for some of the biggest names in the business, and in my early 40s they tried to stick me into management or marketing. I stayed in engineering and as a result, hard a hard time keeping jobs and finding successive jobs. After a couple layoffs (stock price drops $2 per share, so the brilliant CEO, who wants to look proactive to shareholders, tosses a couple hundred people out on the street, including engineers in their 40s). As an engineer I was many levels removed from the end users of the products I worked on. None of the stuff I ever worked on ever made a big impact in anyone's life. At work they were always pushing us to work more and more hours, even as benefits declined. Every time I was forced to change employers by either Dickensian working conditions or a lay-off, vacation time dropped back to next to nothing. Trying to take vacation time as anything other than occasional three day weekends resulted in management giving me the hairy eyeball. Trying to take advantage of the company-paid higher education "opportunities" got me the same push back as trying to take vacation time. All the time it was getting harder to find work, more and more H1B visas were getting the jobs. I saw the writing on the wall and went back to school for 6 years. Now I'm a dentist. I work in public health dentistry, treating mainly working poor people. Every day I relieve people's pain, repair their smiles so they can work at jobs where they have to meet the public, educate them about how to take care of their own and their children's oral health, make dentures so they can smile and chew food again, etc. Everyday my patients thank me for the work I do, sometimes with tears of joy in their eyes. At work I am treated with respect. I work a 4 day week (scheduled 10 hours per day, but sometimes takes a little longer to finish paperwork) can take vacation without anyone complaining or pressuring me not to, I have time off and an allowance for continuing education (which I must use it to maintain my license, so there is zero resistance from management). I earn about what I used to earn toward the end of my engineering career. In summary, my work is far more rewarding than engineering ever was. If I could do it all over I would have been more selective about where I worked as an engineer and would have made the career change much sooner. Finally, when I was deciding on my new career, I started with healthcare because they can't send your job to another country. I spent time with physicians and medical students and with dentists. I found the physicians and med students to be even more unhappy than I and my fellow engineers, and I found dentists to be a pretty happy bunch of people. Med school is brutal and after graduation the insurance companies really kick those guys in the nuts at every turn. That and the detailed work with the hands are what sold me on dentistry. Its very difficult to get into dental school (80+ applicants for every seat when and where I went to school), and the schooling isn't easy, but I don't think it is as demanding as medical school (I know because my wife was in med school at the time).

    3. Re:What I tell kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Type
      where you want carriage returns. Two in a row will give you a space between paragraphs.

    4. Re:What I tell kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a massive nursing shortage in this country. I have a friend who lives in the Philippines and owns a business that trains and imports nurses in the US. He's getting ridiculously wealthy right now. Guess which visas he gets for his workers.

      The only difference between medical and tech is that tech jobs cluster, so there are people in the US who don't believe that we've got a shortage. Any tech worker willing to move to where the jobs are can get one in no time at all.

    5. Re:What I tell kids. by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      either enter BR like Anonymous Coward suggested, or change posting options:
      -Upper right, arrow by account name
      -Account
      -Posting
      "Comment Post Mode" I set to "Plain old text" which will automatically split up paragraphs.

    6. Re:What I tell kids. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you don't know much about medicine in the US. The Government, even more power than H1-B visas, allows doctors from overseas who serve in "underserved" communities to get citizenship/green cards for them and their families (and then by extension, their extended family).

      This is why in rural America you find so many Indian doctors. Hell, in my community (and I'm from the Indian community) it was standard for medical practices to regularly say "there are no qualified Americans" because they could get an Indian in who wouldn't rock the boat for 7 years, to guaranteed a green card and freedom of movement afterwards.

      The only difference in these are private practices usually, so you are less exposed. Hospitals in these areas don't employ many doctors at all. It's small practices that bring in 1 or 2 foreign doctors to carry the workload.

    7. Re:What I tell kids. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I have yet to hear of a hospital that offshored their medical staff or lobbied for H1-Bs.

      I have never heard of any medical establishment saying, "There are no qualified Americans."

      A little different as most such medical professions must be trained and licensed in the US to do that. The thing is that there is no shortage of doctors and other staff coming over here to go to school to begin with. Probably a third of the residents each year at the hospital I work with are foreign (mostly from India). For nurses, apparently the Phillipines has a transferable process because Philipinos working in hospitals is a thing across the country. As for outsourcing, talk to Radiology about sending their X-Rays out to be read elsewhere.

  9. Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women.

    Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

    Now I am not saying women are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most women simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.

    What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the gender gap in these fields? What about the lack of female lumber jacks or female coal miners or female crab fishers?

    I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.

    And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young men that started out with NOTHING.

    Nothing is stopping women from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most men aren't wired that way either.

    Statistically some men are... and while some women are... its a tiny percentage.

    In any case, this gender gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy women's lib bullcrap.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously because it's the evil male patriarchy keeping womyn down by brainwashing them into thinking they don't want these jobs.

    2. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points today. You said everything I wanted to say.

    3. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool. Where do I sign up to be part of the evil male patriarchy?

    4. Re:Actually it starts at conception by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Informative

      A lot of the young men that dropped out of college didn't risk everything since the college they dropped out of was Harvard.

    5. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your privilege you sis scum: If you don't know then you ARE the evil male patriarchy!
      </sarcasm>

    6. Re:Actually it starts at conception by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The title talks about gender AND race gaps. So let's talk about race too. But your commentary works as well for racial differences too. It's just not as popular to point it out.

      "This is a sticky issue but there are differences between whites and blacks.

      Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

      Now I am not saying blacks are not capable of doing the work. Rather, they don't want to do it or don't find it interesting. And yes, there are exceptions but statistically most blacks simply don't want to do technical work. Its not what makes them happy.

      What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the race gap in these fields? What about the lack of black lumber jacks or black coal miners or black crab fishers?

      I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? And really, is tech even high status at this point? Oh sure, there are some extremely well paid positions in that industry but there are also a lot that pay nothing. Its a range.

      And while we're at it, lets point out that the start ups were by and large set up by collections of interested young whites that started out with NOTHING.

      Nothing is stopping blacks from doing the same thing but generally speaking they don't do it. They're not the sort to drop out of college, start some crazy company with some friends, and risk everything to make a go of it in one thing or another. They just aren't wired that way. And to be honest, most whites aren't wired that way either.

      Statistically some whites are... and while some blacks are... its a tiny percentage.

      In any case, this race gap argument is bullshit and needs to get filed as legacy affirmative action bullcrap."

      It' still kind of works though I kind of got a grin talking about black coal miners... I kind of thought they ALL were.

    7. Re:Actually it starts at conception by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women. Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

      I presume you're talking about the nature part of nature vs. nurture. Yes, there are differences, but you haven't cited any specific differences which have a causal effect on who decides to go into CS. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but waving your arm and saying that because there are differences, it must account for this difference, is a very fuzzy argument.

    8. Re:Actually it starts at conception by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      That's why you're not given mod money, right there.

      The Forum is afraid you'd have less time to post these pearls of wisdom.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The person be they male or female makes the primary choice.

      And that choice is in part a factor of their gender.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    10. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 1

      The problem with every single one of these damned threads are people like GP who start off well enough pointing to all the data that proves that male and female brains are wired differently, but then completely misses what those data are saying as you've aptly pointed out.

      Those data aren't saying that women are better or worse at xyz or are biologically predestined to be interested in something or other. What those data are saying is that the brain has a gender, too. Now, if only I could get MRAs to look at their own very good data and come to a more sensible conclusion: that the male gender is not more authentic than the female gender---that anyone who does not desire living as the male gender is not somehow a commie pinko feminist. But whatever, that's another rant and I could have replied to GP if I'd wanted to post that.

      However, I think you're wrong, too, because lumping women and minorities together is brain damaged at best. Minorities (including minority women) face completely different problems than white women do. In fact, at times the problems facing both groups are completely and utterly inverted.

      Look at arrest rates. If you're black, you're probably going to be arrested. I know firsthand what it's like knowing that walking into a business I've never been in before might get the cops called on me for no other reason than my unusual appearance. At least for me, I can go for a little while before a store owner will realize that I'm not a womyn-born-womyn, freak out, and call the cops. I can only hope to imagine what it must be like to have a skin color that would get you refused service at the counter because of what some moron Christian believes about some story in Genesis about how their god made some guy black because he was wicked and was meant to be a slave as his punishment.

      And no, don't tell me that nobody seriously believes that shit. They do. And the more the economy tanks, the more of them there are.

      Now, white women on the other hand are something utterly different. This may surprise you as well, but go actually interact with some real white womyn-born-womyn and you'll see this too. Their Mothers give them all the information they need to become Mothers themselves. It's easy for them to do, and it's a guaranteed paycheck from the government, guaranteed subsidized housing, and guaranteed food on the table. As a bonus, if she can bring on enough of the crocodile tears in front of a judge, she'll even get the father's (or some other guy she was cheating on him with) wages garnished and sent her way too!

      Womyn-born-womyn, by and large, know that they don't need skilled jobs for a living. This is the problem we've created by listening to the feminists and coddling womyn-born-womyn, putting them on pedistals, and letting them get away with just doing whatever the fuck they want. I won't say they don't have self-discipline; they do. These are the daughters of Mothers, and they've been given everything they need by being assigned the female gender at birth with a reproductive system on the inside.

      Think about it. If we didn't force boys to get their hair cut instead of letting them wear it however they want like girls can, how would you ever tell the difference between a boy or a girl before the age of 10?

      We listened to the feminists, presumed womyn-born-womyn to be damsels in distress and oppressed, despite enjoying the same socioeconomic status as men born to similar situations, and it turns out that individuals who don't need skilled jobs to afford to live and have children, won't .

      That is why there are no womyn-born-womyn in tech jobs. Trans women get into these jobs just fine. What the fuck is wrong with womyn-born-womyn and why should we care? They've decided they don't need to be a part of the tech sector, and why should we force them?

      Or, as I've said before, maybe we do need to force them. If I had been a womyn-born-womyn, I would have stu

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    11. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      so your argument is that women don't have rich parents?

      Kindly have a point.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 1

      It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we expect anybody assigned the male gender at birth to be breadwinners and have no such expectations for womyn-born-womyn?

      Why are there so many trans women in tech careers and no womyn-born-womyn? Perhaps it's something other than biology.

      I believe this is a problem that feminism created for itself. Womyn-born-womyn know they don't need to learn a skill or trade in order to become Mothers, and oh how we shower Mothers as a society.

      I hear in Iran, things are quite different. Maybe feminism would like it if we took some direction from them since whatever they're doing seems to be encouraging womyn-born-womyn to get into tech. Maybe we should implement the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2010 recommendation to legitimize the practice of female genital mutilation. Who knows what differences might exist because we mutilate one gender at birth and not the other; maybe we should just do both. Even the reactions womyn-born-womyn had to both the AAP's 2010 report and the AAP's 2012 male circumcision report. The AAP says, sure go ahead and mutilate little girls, and knees jerk until the cows come home. Say that men are better off circumcised, and you get a small army of womyn-born-womyn reporters smirking and nodding. After all, if we screw up when we're cutting a man's genitals and slip or wrose, he was just expantable anyway, and he probably wouldn't have been good in bed anyway, so who cares, right? It's utterly lost on womyn-born-womyn that if they hate having sex with intact men, why are they mutilating an infant instead of having this conversation with somebody they're dating?! Do these womyn-born-womyn plan to have sex with the infant?

      No. It's about control. Womyn-born-womyn love that nothing as horrible as a botched circumcision could ever happen to them, and they love it. If we waited until the child was a bit older, the child might protest or the child might be aware that a part of his body that he needed was amputated and that it's not normal for his glans to constantly hurt.

      That's just the beginning of all the stupid, artificial ways we've decided to create gender. Maybe it's because of the cisgender blind spot, but I don't know that I care anymore. When womyn-born-womyn are telling me that my skill with computers is because of a chemical that's not in my blood or because of a body part that's been mutilated that I'm seeking to remove entirely what should I fucking do?

      Womyn-born-womyn love how things have turned out.

      I don't know if they do this in Iran, but maybe we should force womyn-born-womyn to play sports that they hate whether they like it or not. Maybe we should take away their privilege of wearing their hair however they want it and tell them they're just ditry hippies if they want it to be long. I suppose I could go on.

      How about if a womyn-born-womyn gets pregnant and she can't afford to provide for the child, we take the child from her instead of giving her cash and housing? That might shake up the career and life choices that womyn-born-womyn make!

      None of these things has anything to do with biology and everything to do with the post-feminist culture we've created where anyone assigned the male gender at birth is expendable and womyn-born-womyn are privileged brats.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    13. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women aren't born with the same social-economical status as men. They make 70% of the salary as men in equivalent jobs for equivalent skills.

      They are bombarded with gems such as "Math is hard, let's go shopping!" and are considered a freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture.

      Take a look at Iceland. There, math is considered a girl thing and horses are considered a boy thing. Opposite of here in much of North America. (Iceland is still wrong that these things are still gendered at all, but it shows it's not wired into our brains by genetics - it's wired their by culture).

    14. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I didn't say that. Your strawman is not a counter argument.

      You don't have a right to define my argument. That is my right. Just as I cannot define yours.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Actually it starts at conception by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Combined with your earlier point, that's a tautology:

      There are differences between men and women.
      Such as?
      The choose different types of work.
      Why?
      Because there are differences between men and women.

    16. Re:Actually it starts at conception by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      The "low status" jobs you mention aren't that low status. Believe me, I'm in retail. Lumber-jacks, crab fisherman, etc. not only make more money then I do they also have better hours and more benefits.

      More importantly they are jobs that many people physically can't do. All involve heavy machinery that occasionally has to wrestled with. You need upper body strength to do that, and women just don't have as much upper body strength.

      That's just not the case with Engineering.

      And, as somebody else pointed out, this isn't just a gender-gap, it's a race-gap.

      I suspect the reason for the gender-gap is that 16-18 year-olds are obsessed with race/gender/etc. roles, so when the only comp sci guys they see are on TV geeky upper-classish white men they assume that non-geeky, non-upper-classish, non-white, and/or non-male people are betraying something important by taking a CompSci AP class.

    17. Re:Actually it starts at conception by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Actually, you did.

      What's with bigots being so tender that they can't stand being called out on their bigotry?

      Of course, given your username, the balance of probability says you're just playing a bigot to troll.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    18. Re:Actually it starts at conception by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      I've known a few women who had extremely rich parents --- and had to flee as far as they could to have any life besides "trophy wife for a richer husband." Some rich parents can be extremely sexist and small-minded; they're interested in passing on the family empire to their sons, and selling off their daughters for political/financial alliances. Wanting to grow up as anything other than a high-society socialite can make you a persona non grata in wealthy circles.

    19. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What in the ever-loving fuck are you blathering about? I don't even know where to begin breaking down your rambling diatribe. I understand you're passionate about biological sex, gender and gender roles but I suggest you take a step back, take a deep breath and evaluate your thoughts before submitting them here because what you wrote is a bunch of incoherent nonsense. I don't mean that as a critique of your life, I mean it literally -- your post doesn't make sense. This one or the other two posts you made in this thread as of right now.

      I'm not talking about the content of your post concerning one's biological sex and gender, that's certainly valid and a good, on-topic post, I'm talking about the part where you are literally rambling and unwittingly sabotaging your own thesis.

    20. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, seriously, I'm trying to read your argument. It may be very good. But for fucks sake, if you say "womyn-born-womyn" one more time, I'm going to search you down and punch you in the face! It's a stupid fucking term created by stupid fucking people. It tries to imply that they're different then men by removing "man" from "woman", completely ignoring that man is in generic, the name of the species. When Neil Armstrong said "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" he didn't mean only for the males within the species.

    21. Re:Actually it starts at conception by pagedout · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but someone has to call BS so here we go.

      First, presuming you are living in the 2000s and not a time traveler recent data suggests the average working woman makes 23% less than the average man. This DOES NOT try to control for any factors. When you control for factors even AAUW can only find at best a 7% difference. Some reports show the difference as low as 4.3%. Is there a detectable difference in pay between the sexes? Yes, but just barely. Obviously, as people have a hard time understanding these numbers, "Math is hard" is probably a real thing.

      Second, the rest of your argument is not a complete lie so I have no problem with it. The argument, and studies, about how much is nature and how much is nurture have been going on for a really long time so there is probably substantial truth in both positions. That being said in the US the 'Tom Boy' description is a great example of how your 'freak if they don't conform to the pink unicorn princess culture' is a bit over exaggerated. (As a side note did you know that pink used to be a masculine color it wasn't till the early 1900s that it was considered feminine).

      And here are some things to read if you wish to educate yourself.
      http://freakonomics.com/2010/01/28/superfreakonomics-book-club-goldin-and-katz-on-the-male-female-wage-gap/
      http://www.payscale.com/data-packages/gender-wage-gap
      http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/public-policy/aauw-issues/gender-pay-gap/
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

    22. Re:Actually it starts at conception by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Let's not lump shopping and math together. If they were even close to being the same, marketers and salespeople wouldn't get away with anything close to what they currently pull these days.

    23. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 1

      Didn't click on your links, but one of the things I find hilarious about the whole "wage gap" thing is that in science and tech sectors, womyn-born-womyn are more guilty of it than assigned males!

      If you're a womyn-born-womyn and you want to get a science or tech job, you'd better get interviewed by an assigned male, because he'll pay you more.

      Yet, even though this is a problem womyn-born-womyn are perpetuating, perhaps even causing, we still refuse to hold them accountable. I think we need to start.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    24. Re:Actually it starts at conception by erroneus · · Score: 1

      The truth in nature vs nurture lies not in the stats or studies but in the individual. We have it staring at us. And nerds, most of all.

      Typical nerds have one striking experience in common -- social awkwardness. It comes in many forms and in many ways and in many degrees, but at the end of the day, there are people who seem to naturally fit in with the crowd and people who don't. The people who naturally fit in? Were they trained by their parents to fit in? I used to think so, but it turns out they didn't. There is a LOT of nature involved in behavior for some. The nerds? Well, they had to learn how to fit in... if ever they did or do. This proves there is ability to learn behavior but lots of behavioral characteristics are very natural and are not learned. (Another way to put is is that most people don't even know why they do the things they do because it's natural to them. Nerds tend to know why because they studied it to some degree.)

      And as far as the nurture side? It's really actually quite hard to learn a feeling or emotional response. It's really hard to learn to limit or control them as well. So emotionally based behaviors tend to stay with who has them with some variances for those who practice and those who are medicated as forms of control.

      I have long viewed the differences between people in this sense as the presense of ROM + RAM where some have more ROM than others. I have less ROM. I had to learn a lot. Others definitely have more ROM and have no idea why they do the things they do.

    25. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 1

      lol. You're not quite right on what the term means.

      I don't understand why you get so riled up at the term "womyn-born-womyn." This is a term that was invented by feminists specifically to shame trans women.

      Womyn on its own is the term you're describing. The -born-womyn thing gets thrown on because feminists like to make sure that trans women understand that they're not "really" members of the gender their mind is. So, I got the message!

      What the term does is take gender out of the realm of biological and medical fact and turn it into a caste one must be born into.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    26. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. A good first step is to drop the continuous "womyn-born-womyn" thing. That may mean something to you or some subculture that you belong to, but it doesn't mean anything to anybody else here. Tailor your posts to your audience.

    27. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    28. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of female coal miners is also an issue. But as this is not a website about coal mining news, it doesn't tend to come up very often.

      Chalking it up to brain chemistry is a dangerous game. Humanity has played that one before and ultimately used it to justify all manner of atrocities—once you say "that's just how X people are", it rapidly mutates into "X people can never be otherwise".

      Consider, just hypothetically: if women were less interested in computer science for purely social reasons, e.g. because everyone around them tells them that women just innately don't belong in computer science, then what kind of effect do you think comments like yours would have?

    29. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure are angry at the majority of the human race.

    30. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So you deny that there are differences between men and women?

      You think you have me here... but science doesn't care much for political correctness and you'll find you have nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    31. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No I didn't.

      The bigotry you perceive is in your own mind.

      Do you really want to argue there are no statistical differences between men and women either in ability or interests?

      Tell me, sunshine... what do the Ratings look like for the golden globes broken down by sex?

      What the readership of the average fashion magazine?

      What's that? Mostly women? Doesn't that mean that both the golden globes and fashion mags discriminate against men?

      According to morons like yourself.

      This isn't bigotry. This is just being "aware" of reality. You think you're clever here. But really you've just allowed political correctness to rot your brain.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    32. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to breadwinners, what does that have to do with Steve Jobs setting up a computer company with a group of enthusiasts in a garage?

      Where were the women you think he overlooked?

      Where were they?

      Exactly.

      You're not going to cloud the issue with rhetorical smoke bombs.

      I'm sorry if my observation in this forum offended you. And the "womyn" spelling is cute, but you're not arguing with a bigoted man that is trying to keep you down. You're arguing with a mind that has observed a pattern and is noting it.

      There is a fact here. And you're not going to obscure it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    33. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 2

      Yes. I am.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    34. Re:Actually it starts at conception by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So you deny that there are differences between men and women?

      No, but I'm now forced to deny your ability to follow simple logic.

    35. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Okay, so why aren't the feminists crying for more crab fisher jobs?

      What they want are sexual hiring quotas in the tech sector. That is where this going.

      It is what they always want.

      Hire a given percentage of us or you're a sexist.

      Never mind people are not all equal in ability or interests and that is going to lead to imbalances in hiring patterns.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    36. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Velex · · Score: 1

      Sorry I came off that way. My thing is that we need to look closely at why individuals who were assigned the female gender at birth choose different careers than individuals with female minds assigned the male gender at birth.

      I think what we'll find is that we extend too much privilege to those assigned the female gender at birth, and that privilege is the reason they don't choose careers like HVAC, mechanic, builder, etc. They have no need for those careers in a society that will give them a reasonable lifestyle and provide for a family while working minimum wage if at all. In fact, why should they bother learning those skills at all if having a wild night of sex is all they need to do to start a family and live a middle class lifestyle?

      I think that's wrong.

      Men and women are different, absolutely. Those differences on their own don't support the theory that women are staying out of CS and STEM because of estrogen or vaginas or something biological

      My argument is that it's completely sociological, it's something that no amount of male bashing will fix because assigned males are not perpetuating the problem (or are too afraid of being seen as a misogynist for telling feminism that it's playing a big, big part in this problem), and it's something we can't solve unless we're willing to hold individuals who were assigned the female gender at birth accountable for their choices.

      The fact that as a culture we've decided to make Mother a valid career for women while simultaneously destroying the father role and replacing fathers with sugar daddy government seems to explain a lot more. We have a horrendous anti-male bias, and the more I'm forced to live as a man, the more it becomes impossible to ignore.

      The term womyn-born-womyn is used by feminists to shame trans women because trans women don't have a period and cannot have children and thus are somehow inferior according to them or a threat. I decided to start using it instead of "cis woman" because I don't see any reason to overlook the fact that feminism values animal functions over the body part between the ears.

      At the very least, I need some term to draw a distinction between cis women and trans women to illustrate that the differences in career choice aren't hormonal or neurological.

      Imo, if cis women were to take the energy they use to bash all assigned males and to complain that none of them make the choice to enter STEM and CS careers and just make the choice as an individual to enter STEM and CS careers... well... I suppose they wouldn't have a problem, then!

      They also wouldn't be living a better lifestyle than working a minimum wage job or not at all and getting government benefits for being a Mother. That's the big difference I'm arguing that pressures cis women to make the choices they make, and I think that's a much bigger difference than any neurological or hormonal differences can account for.

      Therefore, if this thing with a lack of cis women in CS and STEM careers really is such a problem (maybe it isn't), then I'm saying that the only way to solve it is to take the option of being a Mother away from cis women and take away their privilege of being presumed victims so they have the exact choices than men and trans women do.

      If nobody wants to do that, then whatever. I see no other way to solve the problem, so if taking the option to become a Mother before a cis woman has a steady career is not something that we want to do, this "problem" will continue to exist.

      Maybe some day feminists will either choose to be happy with the current cis female hegemony we have or choose a level playing field and not try to have their cake and eat it too.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    37. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So now you're saying that women don't have as many start ups because their rich parents don't respect them?

      The idiotic arguments from you clowns just flow like a river.

      Do you even realize the context of the argument here? We were talking about tech start ups and why there aren't as many female tech start ups. Are you honestly staying it comes down to people not giving women a chance?

      Really? You think there were as many female tech start ups that tried but were rejected simply because the applicants had vaginas?

      The delusions from you clowns...

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    38. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be taken seriously by people, you should start by speaking and writing in English, not an invented language of your own. You might find then that people "discriminate" you less (i.e. stop treating you like a retard because they hear you talking like one).

    39. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Baseless insults are baseless.

      If that's all you've got then you've got nothing.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    40. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Many studies have been done with trying to give girls the childhood of boys.

      The problem is that girls reject it even if isolated.

      Some of the behaviors are genetic.

      Again... there will be outliers... biology is messy. But the thing is women tend to CHOOSE certain paths indifferent to how they're raised. Again, this has been found by anthropologists repeatedly.

      They did one where they gave girls boy toys and they ended up having tea parties with fire trucks and then tucking them in for naps.

      I'm not making that up.

      Where as the boys crash them into stuff and race them around.

      What do you think happens if you gave a boy nothing but girl toys? They have wars with ken dolls and barbies. Again, not making it up. This has been found repeatedly.

      Look... I get what you want. But don't punish men for having different interests or impose unrealistic expectations on people.

      Just let people be themselves and try to accept them for who they are... That includes both men and women.

      All you have to appreciate is that the line between nature and nurture is a little skewed to the side of nature. You can bend nature but you can't ignore it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    41. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No, what the term does is make you look like a frothing-at-the-mouth fuckwit and make readers discount your views.

      And fuck the feminists.

    42. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I see your point but really, drop the "womyn-born-womyn" thing, it's...weird to read. I assume you must be transgendered? (which is totally fine by me, it's not like you got a choice) .
      In that case I get why you say it, but really, women since birth are still the norm, it's off to make the distinction in this context.

    43. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Is the lack of female coal miners an issue? Is it really?

      maybe we should go through all the female jobs women tend to have and demand a 50 percent share for men.

      Sound reasonable? And while we're at it, we should set the standards so that men always get at least 50 percent. In fact, we should increase the wages for men if they really don't want to do those jobs. Because after all being good at your job isn't what is important. Wanting to do the job isn't important.

      No... what is important is bullshit labor statistics obsessed upon by asshats.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    44. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the tech fields. It's many fields. Look at who is pouring concrete. Building buildings. Hanging drywall. Welding. There are an entire host of activities that just aren't interesting to women. We can say "But nobody encourages them to do it!"

      Who encourages anyone to hang drywall? Or to weld?

      The country would not have been built if it were up to women. Most will not do anything that is physically demanding. Some will. But not enough. Over the last 100 years, assume it required 100B hours of sweaty labor to get the country where it is today.

      How far along would we be if there were no men, and it were up to women to climb that hill? 30B hours? Congrats, that brings us to about 1950. In other words, left to their own devices, we'd not even have computers yet.

    45. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure; there should be more male nurses and secretaries and whatnot as well.

      If there are 100 people in the country who would be truly excellent at a given job, and half of them don't get into that field because of some cultural gender bs, who do you think will pick up the slack? 50 more people who are less qualified. So yes, it is very much about being good at your job, and about why large swaths of people defined by properties seemingly unrelated to career don't want some jobs.

    46. Re:Actually it starts at conception by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Sexual hiring quota? I have actually dealt with feminists, and precisely zero of them have asked for any kind of quota.

      They really dislike a lot of the joking that goes on in a team of geeks that's almost entirely male, and they're convinced the Valley's family leave policies are Evil and Anti-Woman, but they do not think a hiring quota would solve either problem. This particular study actually makes quotas less likely because if women don;t want to be programmers making a company hire a bunch of them is fucking stupid. Which means that if the Prof who did the study is a Feminist she probably thinks the problems are hard-to-measure things like teen girls thinking no woman programs, ComSci teachers who have trouble relating to females, and young geek guys bullying young geek girls out of geekdom.

      The solution would probably be a lot of publicizing various female CompSci and Computer Engineering types (so that HS girls know that girls code), jawing at AP CompSci teachers in hopes that some of them recruit girls, and trying to recruit new female-friendly AP CompSci teachers.

    47. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you. So is everyone else here. You are not a special snowflake. Get the fuck over it.

    48. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Oh I see, so its all really about the joking, huh? Not about bullying corporations and the government to institute hiring quotas.

      And if we don't put in hiring quotas guess what happens?

      We get more men tehn women in some professions.

      SHOCK GASP

      And then nitwits like you come around to talk about how unfair that is... endlessly... suggesting its all sexism or racism or whatever. And YOU WILL NOT SHUT UP until the stats become more equal.

      Well we know of no way to make your numbers match besides putting in quotas.

      You say you want public service announcements about how some women like computer science? Why? Why are we spending public tax dollars on your statistics fetish?

      Let it go.

      I am beyond tired of this idiotic tendency of people to base very complex social issues arguments on very thin statistical evidence entirely unmoored from any kind of scientific rigor.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    49. Re:Actually it starts at conception by inflamed · · Score: 1

      I see your point but really, drop the "womyn-born-womyn" thing, it's...weird to read. I assume you must be transgendered? (which is totally fine by me, it's not like you got a choice) . In that case I get why you say it, but really, women since birth are still the norm, it's off to make the distinction in this context.

      Making the distinction is a way of drawing attention to the norm of describing trans-gendered people as trans-gendered rather than as the gender they choose to identify with. Maybe a bit passive agressive, but hardly unwarranted.

    50. Re:Actually it starts at conception by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      And I am extremely tired of people who are convinced that they know everything that is going on in my mind because I kinda them remind of this one dude they talked to 30 years ago.

      I said jack-squat about PSAs or elaborate (and costly) media strategies. You are setting up straw-men. Hell your straw-men doesn't actually work. PSAs are free or the station loses it's broadcast license, the actual video used in a PSA is made by a non-profit at no cost to the government, therefore a strategy based entirely on PSAs would not cost any tax money at all.

      "Publicization" could mean any number of things, some of which cost tax money, but others don't. For example it would be free to the government for a feminist organization to make a 15-minute Youtube video on Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace, and then AP CompSci teachers could show the video to girls they thought would do well in their program. Since finding kids who would be benefit from their classes is part of a teacher's job then finding female kids who want to learn programming is by definition part of the job.

      It probably wouldn't get participation to be fully equal, but I've never met a feminist younger the 60 who actually thinks that 50-50 in every profession will ever happen. If you want kids to program then you must want there to be more kids in these classes, and if a class is 82% male then the easiest way to grow it is to add girls.

    51. Re:Actually it starts at conception by russotto · · Score: 1

      What they want are sexual hiring quotas in the tech sector. That is where this going.

      It's worse than that. They want to eliminate geek culture (presumably replacing it with mainstream culture, or perhaps their idealized completely sanitized neuter culture) because most women don't feel comfortable with male geeks. The idea is not just to bring women in but to drive male geeks out.

    52. Re:Actually it starts at conception by dintech · · Score: 1

      Harvard University is 49% male, and 51% female.

      There are more women than men at Harvard. How does your point defeat the GPs point? Surely based on your logic we should see more female high-flying drop-outs than men, right?

    53. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Which is fine.

      We thrive in the wilderness. Everything built was built out of nothing. It is our passion and drive that keeps it alive not the vacuous idiocy.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    54. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sure lets do some tiny thing that is non-binding and costs no money.

      Everyone happy now? Great. Now we don't ever have to talk about this stupidity again.

      No offense to you. This topic annoys me.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    55. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Math is hard, let's go shopping!"

      is correct as the statement

      They make 70% of the salary as men in equivalent jobs for equivalent skills.

      is complete garbage as difficult to master statistics prove.

    56. Re:Actually it starts at conception by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Using 'political correctness' just proves that you're an asshole looking for excuses for your bigotry, and not open to any discussion at all.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    57. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I'm completely open. I simply refuse to let you presume an air of superiority or judge my beliefs against irrational social constructs.

      Why would I let you have the advantage for no reason?

      Why would I accept a moral and ethical premise that automatically puts me at a disadvantage?

      The logic of political correctness is not an even handed ethical system. It gives some power or status over others arbitrarily. And I see no reason why I should legitimize it given that its whole purpose is to arbitrarily De-legitimize given races, genders, and social classes it feels as less morally worthy of rights.

      We are all equally worth of precisely the same rights.

      And I find this entire topic to be offensive and bigoted towards men.

      Its misandry. Nothing more or less. And the proponents of it are no less odious then misogynists.

      I will meet the feminists that want to push this shit tooth and nail answering every barb and jab measure for measure.

      They have exploited male indulgence and chivalry for generations. Enough is enough. They want to be treated like men?

      Okay... No more pulled punches.

      And this isn't internet tough guy stupidity. This is a rhetorical declaration of intent. No kid gloves. No patty cake. If they want to play hard ball then they're in for a shock.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    58. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      What is more, why are we so hyper obessessed about the gender gap in these [technical] fields?

      Good grief, man! Are you serious? How else can fifty-five year old men that live in Mom's basement go out and meet women?

    59. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      If he lives in his mom's basement then he likely doesn't have a job you want to give to a woman.

      So try again. Or better yet, concede to my superiority and get me a beer.

      Either way... your argument is stupid.

      If you want to get lonely engineers especially in Silicon Valley a wife, then you can hire a lot of supernumerary women for all sorts of stuff. Just relocate a lot of the crap that has been moved to india and hire women to fill those slots.

      That way you're not compromising your core R&D team and now suddenly there are loads of financially strapped women in close proximity that will have all their problems fixed by moving in with one of these guys and saying yes.

      Would that not solve the problem the valley is having with engineers wanting to move to SF because there are no girls in the Valley?

      Look, my only hostility here is to not hiring the right people for the right job. If you have two candidates for a job and one is woman and one is a man... and the man is a little better for any reason then hire the man. Ditto for the woman if she's better. But do not hire people simply because they have vaginas.

      Unless the job requires a vagina... then it's okay.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    60. Re:Actually it starts at conception by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      No my argument is that Mark Zuckerberg didn't "risk everything". Kindly use your brain.

    61. Re:Actually it starts at conception by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      have you seen how much family money usually backs the biggest start ups? Apple is one of the FEW not backed by real generational wealth. Where do you think this money comes from usually?

      It's the same in finance. Many of the young powerhouses were backed by real family money. Nothing of much consideration, other than a couple of years in your 20s was risked.

      By the way, I'm not minimizing the contributions of many of these folks. I'm just saying it isn't a big risk if you know when it doesn't work out you still havee a home, food, car, and the ability to go back and finish your college education. You haven't really risked everything, just a little bit of time.

    62. Re:Actually it starts at conception by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      in reminds me of creationists, who start with a reasonable point (xyz has no legitimate explanation within the understood framework of evolution) that could equally be an argument for an extension or new understanding of the framework. instead they go off and say "then, it must be this random idea I pulled out of my ass"

    63. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're still making the clearly moronic argument that women don't have rich parents.

      I regret if my observation as to the idiocy of that point might offend you. However, on reflection you should admit that any perceived lack of tact on my part at expressing this... the point is indefensible.

      Please acknowledge this so we can move on... the obvious consequence of admitting this point will be the that this line of argument fails.

      Again, this is not an attempt at hostility or brow beating or some other monkey pissing contest played out over the internet. Rather, it is a lack of patience with illogical arguments that do not deserve any more of our time.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    64. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      And what relevance does that have to the larger argument on women in technology?

      Do you honestly think you can bring up specific anecdotal incidents and nitpick the issue with irrelevant points?

      Kindly have an ACTUAL point that either directly undermines my argument or directly supports another.

      I have very little patience for "well there is some guy that had something happen that doesn't perfectly fit the exact wording of your generalization."

      Clearly you don't understand what a generalization is in the first place.

      Allow me to educate you, a generalization is a simplification that is not specific to any one incident. It does not approximate all situations but rather is meant to vaguely express a cloud of known information. The cloud in most cases cannot be specifically defined without going into extreme detail. So for brevity sake it is commonly GENERALIZED to save time since the difference between the generalization and the data is frequently a distinction without meaning.

      To answer your point, yes people that come from ivy league schools likely could find employment and would not die in the streets if their ventures died and forced them to get back on a conventional career track.

      Your observation is very cunning. That's sarcasm. I point that out because you're stupid.

      Good day, nitwit.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    65. Re:Actually it starts at conception by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      well, I'll say 2 points.

      Yes, as many women have rich parents as men. Absolutely. My point was that it is ridiculous to say things like "these men were fearless, taking such risks and others did" when the facts on the ground say you are massively over-exagerating the risks they are taking (this would be a racial argument especially, because you have to admit the average family wealth of a white person is higher than a black, and the skew is extreme). The original article was about both race and gender, though I appologize for pushing your argument onto the racial discrepencies rather than just gender. But I do take issue with making it sound like all these tech entrepreneurs are somehow living on the edge of survival trying to do something. It is part of this needless glorification.

      And as gender goes, you are absolutely right that women have as much family money. But there are large swaths of the country and communities (I know, I grew up in one of these highly educated, wealthy communities) that will not give this money to a daughter, and will never accept the fact a daughter drops out of school for the chance to do something big.

      I'm not saying it's UNIVERSAL mind you. Just that I was part of communities where a women who did this would not be backed by family money for seed investments and would not find a welcoming environment from their support group for doing this. On the other hand, I would have been supported with everything I needed. That is a real experience, but obviously this doesn't explain why OTHER women didn't break off, drop out of college, and start something.

      Granted, it has been shown that men are far more willing to take risks (even small ones) if they think it will help get them laid. And frankly, I think that is a MUCH BIGGER reason you see men doing risky behavior. And if you are already enabled to take risks by a safety net, it wouldn't be surprising to me to see you go bigger in risk than other men (or women, obviously).

    66. Re:Actually it starts at conception by phoenix03 · · Score: 1

      I understand the passion behind your posts, and I am actually in agreement with you on a lot of points. However, the womyn-born-womyn thing is blurring the message. A cursory 'Find' suggests you've used it 91 times. It's distracting from your points, to be honest.

    67. Re:Actually it starts at conception by phoenix03 · · Score: 1
      So what about when a group of women get together and talk about how men are pigs or how dumb we are? The upsetting thing is when a woman enters a group of men, she expects the behavior of the men to change to suit the woman.

      They really dislike a lot of the joking that goes on in a team of geeks that's almost entirely male, and they're convinced the Valley's family leave policies are Evil and Anti-Woman,

      And I really dislike this nonsense that tries to jam 'equality' into CompSci and completely disregards the bias against men in education. The very fact of being male has been under attack for far too long, and I'm sick of tolerating it.

    68. Re:Actually it starts at conception by GravidMind · · Score: 1

      A lot of the young men that dropped out of college didn't risk everything since the college they dropped out of was Harvard.

      You realize that the VAST majority of Harvard students aren't rich. Harvard, MIT, and similar caliber schools have the/among the best financial aid packages in the US and completely need-blind acceptance policies -- partly because they don't make their money on student fees, but from grants, etc.

    69. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Guess I wasn't apparent enough. I was just giving you grief so we could laugh. I admit... my joke wasn't the best. If anything, I was poking fun at the male gender... of which I'm a part of.

      In all seriousness: if you live in Hamburg, Germany, I'll buy you that beer.

      My wife works with engineers a lot. Her profession required technical training and she's good at what she does. She's brought home stories about how some engineers tried to explain things to her along the lines of "If you put a chicken in the oven..." She politely nods her head at the time and eye rolls at that kind of stuff when she gets home. We both fully agree with you: hire the right person for the right job regardless of gender.

    70. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I came off as hostile. There are a lot of rabid nutcases on the internet and I have a scorched earth policy with those wastes of oxygen.

      I live in Los Angeles... so I'll take a rain check on the beer. If you were in LA, I'd buy you a round.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    71. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      So you think the tech imbalance is due to rich parents not respecting their daughters.

      Okay.

      I don't buy your safety net argument. Women have been shown to take risks if they have a safety net. Men have been shown to take risks without it.

      That is actually the difference. Women do start businesses. They do it at a much lower rate and have a much lower failure rate.

      Does that mean that women are better business managers? No. They simply don't start businesses unless their probability of failure is much lower.

      So this safety net argument you have is actually reversed. The men are doing it with or without the safety net. The women are doing it only with it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    72. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a sticky issue but there are differences between men and women.

      Anthropologists and neurologists have been proving this for some time.

      Keep reading past that line ... Sure, there are statistical differences between men and women, but they are dwarfed by the range of interest and capability in both.

    73. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      I understand and you're right about the rabid nutcases. When I joke, I try to make my jokes so absurd that it is clear that I'm cracking one. Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, a lot of my jokes on the Internet just don't seem funny because there are people on the Internet who are so crazy that they make my jokes look tame. (This one was still a bad joke.) Oh well... all well that ends well.

    74. Re:Actually it starts at conception by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      That's a whole lot of crazy there, but not a lot of original thought.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    75. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      baseless insult is baseless and therefore null.

      Do you have anything to contribute besides null input? Or is that all you can manage? The rhetorical equivalent of white noise.

      I win by default if you can't do better.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    76. Re:Actually it starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment is probably one of the important and relevant to the premise of the article. Richer families tend to be more socially conservative, the older the wealth the older the thinking. So long as parents and teachers push their own history on children we will get effects like this. The problem is not necessarily deliberate pushing but the implicit assumptions about the social value of certain career paths. We have created an image of IT that associates it with outcasts and the socially awkward. This, I think is the cause of fewer women entering the profession along with the lingering view that women have no need for "difficult" subjects like math despite the clear evidence of their ability.

      The problem is not at the college level, it's all of the 18 years before college where women are discouraged from technical careers. Some jobs are inherently less desirable to most people, others have physical requirements that eliminate the majority of women but most do not. Take IT, the subject of the argument here. The job of a programmer is to be the interface between man and machine. Do you really think there's anything in this that can't be done by anyone with a fairly good brain? Society holds the view that the only thing that makes this job desirable is the money and men are pushed from an early age to earn as much as they can in order to get a wife and support the family that results and that jobs requiring physical strength are evidence of their masculinity. Women are brought up with the expectation that they can find a man to support them so only the self-reliant ambitious and those with personal interest seek jobs that aren't seen by society as feminine.

  10. You haven't been paying attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a rather LARGE shortage...

    Of my last five medical transactions, three were foreign nationals.

    And there are a shortage of doctors and nurses in various states.

    Now, the REASON there are shortages involve the expense of a medical degree, AND the high yearly insurance fees.

    The median debt of a doctor getting out of school is $160,000. Yearly fees and insurance alone is around $32,197 just to attend.

    Not very many can afford that.

    1. Re:You haven't been paying attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a rather LARGE shortage...

      Of my last five medical transactions, three were foreign nationals.

      And how many were on H-1B's rather than green card-holders?

      Competing with immigrants isn't the problem. Competing with indentured servants is.

    2. Re:You haven't been paying attention. by Guppy · · Score: 1

      And how many were on H-1B's rather than green card-holders?

      Well, most FMGs use J1 visas for residency and fellowship, although H-1B's are sometimes used for this purpose as well. Afterwards, an H1B can be used to remain in the US as a practicing physician, and as a stepping stone for a green card.

  11. Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can't force someone into something they don't have calling. Let each individual make own choices instead following some numbers on the spreadsheet.

  12. what I found interesting... by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you drill down to some of her Excel spreadsheets you'll find that the overall number of female CS exam takers was 18.5%. One might explain that by arguing that women just don't like math/science/etc. But you'll also find that 48% of Calculus AB exam takers were women. Possible explanation: you need calculus if you're planning to do pre-Med as an undergraduate and lots of women wants to be doctors. Apparently very few women want to be software devs and/or engineers. But it's not because they're unwilling to take a math class, as we can see from the rate of females taking the Calculus exam.

    1. Re:what I found interesting... by moschner · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is: How many high schools offer CS classes sufficent to prepare a student for the Advanced Placement computer science exam?

      Or even how many teachers, faculty, and/or students are aware of AP CS exams?

      Another thing is the cost of taking the AP exams. Who can afford to take the exam if they are not really sure it will help? For 2014 the fee for each AP Exam is $89. If a student qualifies financially, they may only have to pay $55 or $53 per exam.

      This creates a financial barrier to entry that also be a factor in who is taking the exams.

    2. Re:what I found interesting... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Apparently very few women want to be software devs

      Given the rampant misogyny on display in the tech world, especially on discussion sites like this, would you want to become a sofware dev, were you a woman?

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    3. Re:what I found interesting... by Velex · · Score: 1

      Shhh!

      Next we might find out that womyn-born-womyn really aren't segregated and living in ghettoes in the bad part of town! Next we might find out that womyn-born-womyn actually have pretty much the same opportunities as the males in their families!

      Who knew?!

      Next we might even find out that when one is assigned the male gender, one realizes that one needs to get a job that's going to provide a decent income and work whether it's something one finds personally interesting or not, and that when one is able to become pregnant, minimum wage is good enough because nobody dares question a Mother.

      If we want to solve this problem, we need to start questioning Mothers. We need to drasticly reduce spending on entitlement programs for Mothers. Require womyn-born-womyn to get skilled jobs regardless of their interest if they want to have children, and you'll see things change.

      Eh, screw it. I have a feeling that womyn-born-womyn would rather wind up back in the kitchen than do something hard like math. It's true! I interact with so, so many womyn-born-womyn at work who can't do anything with numbers beyond the basic 4 operations. It's not because of estrogen or because of their womb or their period or anything stupid like that. It's because it's below them.

      Oh, but that doesn't stop them from bashing me over the head with Ada Lovelace. Proprietary software having a problem? It couldn't possibly be the vendor, according to some womyn-born-womyn I work with, it must be my assigned gender! It must be a hormone I don't even have in my blood! If only a "woman" were in my position, then everything would be sunshine and rainbows!

      These aren't individuals who are oppressed. These are individuals who are just quite simply above things like programming. After all, somebody will provide food and housing for them.

      The triumph of feminism was transforming the source of that security from a good husband to the state. Feminism may have opened some doors along the way, and do we see some womyn-born-womyn who actually do want to do things like being a doctor or lawyer, but ultimately that's a side effect of what feminism wanted to do. Feminism is about the hegemony of one assigned gender over everyone else.

      Feminism absolutely hates the idea that with equality might come accountability. The idea of a "room of one's own" is that because one is born with a womb, the world just owes one something, and since anyone assigned the male gender at birth is an evil rapist, regardless of the gender of the body part between their ears, regardless of what hormones are in their blood, regardless of whether they're revolted by intimacy with womyn-born-womyn the same way you'd be revolted if another guy tried to sleep with you, it's moral to demand that assigned males actually build the "room of one's own." The idea that one would work for the "room of one's own" is absolutely foreign to feminism.

      I love it, and I think we need to do more to make womyn-born-womyn personally accountable for their lives. I say start kicking them the same way we'd kick a guy who was a bum. Put them in some pain if they don't start signing up for CS classes.

      Maybe if we take away the womyn-born-womyn privilege of being able to start a family without any way to provide for it, we'd start seeing more womyn-born-womyn in tech. As it stands, why would somebody want to screw themselves up with a mountain of technical crap for a mediocre salary, when they can just get pregnant, work a minimum wage job, and live with about the same quality of life?

      So yes, a womyn-born-womyn who wants to make her own income will get into medicine or become a lawyer. Womyn-born-womyn aren't stupid. They know the chances of being a rockstar like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg or even making it past the quality of life they could enjoy on welfare by getting into science and tech jobs is miniscule.

      We need to level the playing field. If we want to pour gobs of money into s

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    4. Re:what I found interesting... by quetwo · · Score: 2

      Let alone many schools won't accept AP credit if that is what your major is in. Why take an AP test if CS is your passion but it does absolutely no good? Unlike most other AP exams (language, math, etc) those credits are useful for people who are not in those majors.

    5. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody wants to hear it here, but frankly, in high school, high-level math is going to be a million times more useful than CS in the long run, even if you go into CS.

    6. Re:what I found interesting... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      That's probably part of it. But there's a much simpler explanation.

      If you want to be valedictorian/Harvard material/etc. you have to take a lot of AP classes, and you have to take three or four years of math. You don't have to take any computer classes. There are only a couple AP courses that are pure mathematics -- Calc AB and Calc BC and Statistics -- and Calc AB is probably the only one offered at most schools.

      OTOH if you need a full load of AP classes senior year CompSci is probably optional.

    7. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a little bitch would pass on the opportunity to make money doing something they are good at because people don't like him/her

    8. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the actual fuck?

    9. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they are not accepted for credit, AP scores can often be used for placement allowing you to skip pre-requisites and be more likely to finish your program on time/early.

    10. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's talking about chicks with dicks. I think.

    11. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think this place is misogynistic? Holy fuck, you should set your computer on fire and go play outside, because it's only worse from here on the internet.

    12. Re:what I found interesting... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      She claims that of the ~15,000 schools offering at least one AP course only 2300 offer an AP Computer Science course.

      Re: cost, the cost may be high for some, but presumably you're only taking the AP exam if you're planning to attend college. If that's the case then the cost of the exam is small compared to the cost of taking the course for real. Then again, if you're someone for whom the cost of an AP exam is significant then maybe you're not going to be paying tuition anyway.

      In some ways it makes sense that the CS exam is less popular than the other because it's narrowly focused. Compare it to the English exam. Most colleges require you to take an English class regardless of what degree you're pursuing. So every college-bound high school student would benefit from taking the English exam. Ditto History. Calculus is less broad, but its still a requirement for all the Engineering degrees, Business, Math, Computer Science and all the hard sciences. Computer Science, on the other hand, is usually only a requirement for the Computer Science degree, maybe Engineering and maybe Math.

    13. Re:what I found interesting... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I might, actually. Just to spite the misogynists. I suspect I would have been really obnoxious as a woman. Even more so than I am as a man. :)

    14. Re:what I found interesting... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      I'd argue they're roughly equivalent if you're planning to study computer science as an undergraduate. Whichever you don't take in high school you'll end up taking at university, so there's no knowledge lost. If it were the case that university Calculus courses sucked but intro Computer Science classes were amazing then yeah, I'd agree you're better off taking the Calculus AP exam so you don't have to take it at university. But...that's probably no the case. Both intro courses are usually pretty lame. If you're a high school principal deciding which to offer, though, then I agree Calculus makes more sense, but only because it appeals to a larger number of students (by virtue of being a requirement for a broader range of degrees).

    15. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is this "gender assigned at birth". Gender is not assigned, unless you mean by god/the universe/genetic chance.

      I'm sorry if you're born with low testosterone or non-functional testicles or whatever, but you need to accept reality that people are born men or women, and harden the fuck up. Also you need to learn how to spell, it's "women" not "womyn", you ignorant twit.

      Also, the freedom as a man (not born fag, pussy queermo) to do whatever I want, whenever I want and deal with the consequences is awesome. Choosing to respect women for bearing children, something that is inherent and critical to humanity, and create a world that is safe for childern, the next generation of our society is fucking awesome.

      I'm sorry you're too much of a pussy to man up and have some respect for yourself and the society we live in. You want to play make believe and pretend you are a woman, but you have no purpose as a woman, you can't give birth or raise children, and you've abdicated your responsibility as a man to protect women, society and stand up for what is decent and what is right. Shame on you.

    16. Re:what I found interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the good schools make everyone take a placement exam at the school you want to attend, even if you take AP classes. You MAY be able to skip the intro to ___ and that's it, maybe. As a whole, AP classes don't mean anything anymore as far as credits are concerned. They have been dumbed down, and the effect is they give students the false impression they are ready. They have found that freshman come in with AP this and AP that and think they have mastered that level. Then they take a real college level course and find out they can barely pass, or fail all together in the intro course|level II course they were supposed to have mastered. Most AP courses today are the standard HS courses of old. My point is take the AP classes, they won't hurt you, but don't believe for a second they are equivalent to college level courses, at least at a good school. A good school will push you farther than you can ever imagine while you are in HS, no matter how good you think you are. No matter what, why would skip out on seeing, talking to, and maybe more(make sure they are over 18), all the freshman babes. There is more to college than books. Trust me, in your upper level classes(maths and engineering), most of the women will seem to go the way of the dodo bird, and if they are there, woof! Always have a future plan for that, and that is by taking electives not in your major as a junior and senior. Electives are your friend. "Maybe I do need to take intro to psychology before I graduate!"

    17. Re:what I found interesting... by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      or possibly because calculus is considered part of the standard curiculum of college bound high performers in high school? It was understood that the top students in our school took calculus (and this was across 2 high schools I attended). Why wouldn't you expect women, who generally score higher and graduate and go on to college more than men to take an AP course that is considered par for the course? CS is not par for the course. AP exams that aren't considered core are usually not pushed as hard when you go talk to you guidance counselor.

    18. Re:what I found interesting... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Most of the good schools make everyone take a placement exam at the school you want to attend, even if you take AP classes.

      Not sure this is true. Though, it may depend on how you define "good school". Harvard only lets you count them toward graduation if you have a full year's worth of credit. However, with a high enough score they let you use them to fulfill prerequisites for other courses. Scores on the foreign language exams regardless of whether you have a full year of credit.

  13. is created by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >"But exam data shows the gap is created much earlier"

    "is created" implies that some one or some group is guiding/causing/forcing it to be so. A better wording would be "appears" or "unfolds" or "starts" something.

    Wording is important.

  14. Skewed summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mississippi gets thrown under the bus in the summary. Yet when you look in the excel file 2 schools were involved. Only 1 student took the exam. And they don't have results for him. I love when statistics are used incorrectly to discriminate. Especially when the statistics are supposedly being used to point out such discrimination. A skewed summary built on bad data (how does one student attend two schools) to get attention and free advertising for their college. At least they had the common sense to leave out the states that had no students take the exam. They should have calculated a minimum sample size to represent the group and thrown out all the states with less exam takers than the required sample size. Considering that not all states have the same minority ratios, They could have compared the minority ratios of those actually of test taking age and living in the remaining states proportionately on a state by state basis. To summarize the data as-is is in poor taste and will lead to poor judgments.

    1. Re:Skewed summary by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      How does one student attend two schools? Ever heard of transfers?

      The meat of the argument is national. By their math half the students should be female, 22% should be Latino, and 14% black. So 36% should be minorities, half the rest should be female, which should leave 32% white/Asian males. Instead 12% were black or latino and 18% female. Which means at least 70% were white/Asian males. Assuming 12% of the females were black/latino it's 72%. That's double the expected number, which is a pretty weird. And anything weird is by definition worthy of further study.

      As for the state data, keep in mind that they admit that they've got a tiny sample size in most states, and only really harp on Utah and Idaho. Both are 10% Latino, and both had dozens of kids take the test, but Idaho had no Latino test-takers. None. They should have had 5 or 6. Utah had 6, but that's only half what they should have had.

    2. Re:Skewed summary by corran__horn · · Score: 1

      I would be highly curious to see this scalled by years of US residency among latinos. I know a number had not been in the US for their whole schooling carreer and while they were catching up (I know a number took AP spanish for example), there were not many in the AP tracks for most classes. It also assumes that the availability of AP classes is constant across all schools. My high school didn't have AP computer science for example. We had classes for almost every other AP class, but not CS (or BC calc until the year after I graduated).

      Part of the issue is that people on the AP track started in 9th grade, as we generally did two years in the subjects. So honors bio -> AP Bio, honors chem -> AP chem, etc.

      --

      If people can connect to one another even the smallest of voices will grow loud.
      --Serial Experiments Lain
  15. So what? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This just in: different genders and ethnic groups are naturally attracted to different things.

    Next we'll be hearing about how there are an inordinately high number of females in the hairstyling and beautician industry or how basketball has too many black men.

    Oh, wait, no we won't, because discriminating against white males is the racism du jour.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd agree, then, that our culture steers women away from high-paid tech work and toward "feminine" jobs like hairstyling?

      Oh, wait, no we won't, because discriminating against white males is the racism du jour.

      Where is the "discrimination" against white males? TFA only suggests that Computer Science courses should start to market towards women as well as men, and that it should count for credit towards science unit requirements.

      Speaking as a white male myself, I think you're imagining this discrimination to make yourself feel persecuted. It's fucking great to be a white male in a society dominated by white males! We earn more than pretty much every demographic, get shorter prison sentences than nearly every other race, we're much less likely to be imprisoned at all for drug offences, don't get targeted by police nearly as much, and are more likely to be born to rich parents than anyone else.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A black guy (Spike Jonze) makes a movie (_Her_) about a white guy who falls in love with his cell phone.

      Could that be racial profiling?

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh, spike jonze (real name: adam spiegel) is german-american....

    4. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: different genders and ethnic groups are naturally attracted to different things.

      Why? Are blue eyed people attracted to different things than brown eyed people? What about people born in February versus July? Without data, at what point do you turn into someone who consults a horoscope for serious issues of the day?

    5. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF, it's "fucking great to be a white male" because you're "more likely to be born to rich parents"...even if you weren't? Your think like a racist.

    6. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just in: different genders and ethnic groups are naturally attracted to different things.

      Well, that's the question, now, isn't it? All kind of statistics saying women, or some other group, just doesn't enter white-male-dominated fields, and the response always ends up two ways. Maybe "they" just don't like those fields. Maybe "they" are subjected to social pressures that turn them away from those fields.

      What's a social pressure? Every time my toddling nephew picks up a truck toy or a car toy, his parents coo over him and say stuff like "The boy loves his trucks." Every time his sister picks up a baby doll, her parents coo over her and say things like, "she is such a girl, and we haven't pushed her in this direction at all." Kids are very malleable and very sensitive to negative social cues. They don't need anything as blatant as someone telling all the girls that math is hard and wouldn't they rather play house?

      I don't know whether women are biologically programmed to dislike computer science. I do know that many lucrative fields are white-male-dominated, and I do know that those which have made specific efforts to diversify (eg, medicine) have seen their male dominance disintegrate. So, when representatives of a field with a reputation for misogyny speak up and say that the women just don't like their field, I'm skeptical.

    7. Re:So what? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that all the good comments on this page are by ACs. :[

    8. Re:So what? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Note to my fellow white men:
      90% of the time when you think people are subtly accusing you of being racist you're not being accused of actual racism. You're either being accused of being too immature to understand that non-white, non-men don't think it's funny when you bully them; or you're not actually being accused of anything. At all. This is a clear case of the latter.

      The article says too few black/Hispanic/female teens are interested in Computer Science as is shown by their not taking a voluntary test. Since most of the population is female, and another good 15-20% are minority males, this means that CompSci is missing out on 65-70% of it's potential brightest stars. You arbitrarily assumed that an article half about how girls don't get into CompSci was 100% about racism I will ignore sexism. And if I ignore sexism the people you could blame for little black boys not taking the test include almost no groups dominated by white men. I'll go through the list:

      1) Minority parents are not forcing their little darlings to take challenging academic classes. Which is not the white man's fault.

      2) Local education boards do not have the classes available in minority areas. Since most people live in an area where they're a majority this is not the white man's fault.

      3) State education systems are set up so that local education boards in minority areas don't have the cash to fund a dozen 15-person AP-level classes in every High School. Since blacks are disproportionately working class they can't afford to move to a wonderful district with $500k homes and great schools. Since many Latinos spent all their capital moving here, and now have working-class near-minimum wage jobs they can't afford those $500k homes either. Without revenue sharing schools in places they can afford to live won't be able to spend a butt-load on AP classes. Note that a) most voters are not white men, so if this is a problem it cannot be a problem caused solely by white men, and b) most white men are actually on the wrong end of this one, because the white working class can't afford that beautiful $500k suburb either.

    9. Re:So what? by Velex · · Score: 1

      Every time my toddling nephew picks up a truck toy or a car toy, his parents coo over him and say stuff like "The boy loves his trucks." Every time his sister picks up a baby doll, her parents coo over her and say things like, "she is such a girl, and we haven't pushed her in this direction at all." Kids are very malleable and very sensitive to negative social cues. They don't need anything as blatant as someone telling all the girls that math is hard and wouldn't they rather play house?

      Bingo.

      So, when representatives of a field with a reputation for misogyny speak up and say that the women just don't like their field, I'm skeptical.

      What do you propose to do and since when were science and tech jobs lucrative? I think that's probably the problem right there. It's not lucrative.

      It pays the bills. If you're a womyn-born-womyn, however, it's easier just to sign up for entitlement programs. Those pay the bills, too. I see it all the time. Sometimes this behavior is even encouraged by the individual's mother!

      I wish it wasn't that way, but what is there to do? Get me a genie so I can wish to be a womyn-born-womyn so I'm not blamed for choices others make? Sure, why not. That's perfectly fine with me. Won't be statistically significant, but at least I won't be accused of sexism anymore.

      I mean, look. I have literally been accused of sexism because the I wasn't willing to resign a job I had and just roll over into a gutter because a womyn-born-womyn who had absolutely no background in tech believed that merely by having a vagina, that'd make her better at the job because Ada Lovelace had a vagina, too!

      Sometimes accusations of sexism can be deeply rooted in sexism itself.

      This is a situation where feminism would have more credibility in pointing the finger of sexism just as soon as they get around to caring about what percentage of builders, plumbers, HVAC technicians, and diesel mechanics are womyn-born-womyn. Instead, it seems that feminists and white knights are doing little more than exploiting the "geek" stereotype and engaging in bullying.

      There are plenty of geek girls out there. If they want money, they go into sales or medicine where there is money. If they want family, they know how to get pregnant and enroll in entitlements. They have no need for science and tech careers.

      They also know every time I point this out, there's a white knight that will jump up to defend their victimization. Well, sure, let's try to get more womyn-born-womyn into CS careers. I'm not the best teacher, but I've pointed numerous womyn-born-womyn at languages like Python and offered to answer questions, just that doesn't appear to do jack shit about this problem.

      Hell, once I was helping a womyn-born-womyn with her C homework. I compiled it and ran it on my computer and didn't get the same result she got. I found the error (buffer overflow iirc that worked on win32 but not on linux) and told her why we were getting different results, but she jumped on me and called me sexist! How the hell is pointing out a buffer overflow sexist?! (Really, think about that. Does it make you feel good to know that there's a programmer out there, programming computers, who thinks that a buffer overflow is a term I invented because I was trying to intimidate her and be sexist!? And that the only reason she gets away with it is because of her assigned gender and all the feminists and white knights backing her up! If it were a guy we'd just call him ignorant or an idiot or both and be done with it. Womyn-born-womyn have the privilege of being victims when they're objectively wrong.)

      Just don't punish me for being assigned the wrong gender at birth in any more ways than I've already encountered, but that's exactly all anyone's ever proposed. If I don't roll over into a gutter and hand my job over to a womyn-born-womyn who doesn't have any experience or education, then I must be sexist and a misogynist!

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    10. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The more you post the less you're able to mask the contempt you obviously harbor for women. Whatever self-loathing issues you have don't need to be directed at those women whose biological sex matches their gender. Punishing others based on their gender identity is wrong and that is exactly what you are trying to do to women. You're not fooling anyone except for yourself...

    11. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White men own all the most lucrative and influential jobs in the Western world (politics, science, engineering...) and you think you're being discriminated against when people ask why this is the case?

    12. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The repeated, almost validation-demanding use of the triple-bogus phrase "womyn-born-womyn" discredits everything else that you type.

    13. Re:So what? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In this country white men are bottom of the list for social housing. Men get fucked over by the courts. Men get worse healthcare and die younger. Men are practically excluded from some professions. Men get lower passrates at exams. Men are more likely to be physically assaulted. Men retire at an older age. Men don't get support when they're the victims of domestic abuse (and men under 25 are more likely to be victims than women under 25).

      Yet I'm meant to be fucking happy because I can go out and work 60 hours to pay higher fucking taxes than women?

      Fuck you.

    14. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where to find this list, but I note that only a third of the homeless in the US are white at all.

      If you're referring to reproductive law, yes, that's clearly quite antiquated.

      Some brief reading suggests that part of the reason for this is that significantly more men than women are smokers. So consider not doing that. Really, everyone should consider not doing that.

      Women are also practically excluded from some professions. It's a problem in either direction.

      Perhaps high school boys would do better academically if high schools didn't glorify entertainment professions (e.g. football) over academics.

      Men are also more likely to commit assault. If men would knock it off then these counts would go down for everyone.

      Men retire a whopping 8 months later. Men also have considerably more saved for retirement.

      Any victim of abuse should absolutely get support, yes. (I doubt the archetype of the stoic man is helping here.)

      Yes, you should be plenty happy that you can earn enough to be in a higher tax bracket. What a ridiculous thing to complain about.

    15. Re:So what? by inflamed · · Score: 1

      WTF, it's "fucking great to be a white male" because you're "more likely to be born to rich parents"...even if you weren't? Your think like a racist.

      Being born to rich parents is advantageous. Looking like someone who's more likely to be born to rich parents is also a benefit.

    16. Re:So what? by dintech · · Score: 1

      Don't be a deliberate fucking moron. If there are more women in tech then there are less men. And speaking of prison sentences, for the same crime, who does more time? A white woman or a white man? Fuck off with your retarded gender bias.

    17. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford were very proud to announce that they were having a hiring embargo on white men. Many other companies also have such discriminating hiring policies but are ignored. Privilege my ass.

    18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops. Apologies. Got the Spikes confused.

  16. Please, people, stop with the "I'm sorry but"s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm sorry, but why is it that they only care about jobs considered high status? "

    Stop with the "I'm sorry but"s, mmkay?

    It's so womanish. It really is.

  17. It starts at conception by jackspenn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why are we fixated on trying to artificially diversify professions?

    The PC BS has to stop at some point. There are some professions and things that men prefer more than women and others that women prefer more than men.

    I will give you one example of this insanity:

    In the mid-nighties a friend of my parents came over all upset. She was a manager for a publisher and all except one of her editors were female. She explained that men did not have a strong desire to edit textbooks. The only male she could find that was both good and interested cost her over double the rate of any other female editor. The reason was that she had to hire him away from another employer so that she could meet a diversity requirement from some of the states who purchased her textbooks.

    Well, this male editor ended up getting an even higher offer from a different publisher. As she sat at my parents table saying "Men just do not enjoy or wish to be editors as much as women do. How am I ever going to find enough men who are both good and interested in doing this job?"

    It was at this point that my dad who worked in IT at the time walked in and heard this statement. He said "I have the same diversity issue at work, they would like to have more women in IT, but most women don't want to be in IT."

    At this point my mom suggested the simple solution, she explained how my dad was paying good women more money than men to work in IT when he could find them and sometimes not as good women when he had nothing else. So my parents friend ended up hiring three not so good male editors and just had whatever they edited initially sent back through to other editors.

    Was that fair? Was it right? No, it was what the government wanted.

    People walk around saying "Diversity is our goal" or "Diversity unites us". Yeah, that last one goes up at a state office building each April, I go to their lobby just to laugh at their mini-ministry of truth.

    The truth is so much simpler. Hire people who are interested in learning/growing in the areas related to their work. Don't worry about how the numbers turn out. The only reason companies worry about diversity is because of some BS forms some bureaucrats asks them to fill out. Don't let your world be shaped by this nonsense. If asked be honest, explain you do not discriminate, you only hire the best qualified.

    (I agree, I do need an editor)

    --
    Respect the Constitution
    1. Re:It starts at conception by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why are we fixated on trying to artificially diversify professions?

      Perhaps because "we" believe that the best explanation for the massive disparity in numbers is due largely to some social pressure rather than something innate?

      The truth is so much simpler.

      Not really.

      Let us say we are sure the differences are due to misapplied social pressures. Would you prefer to leave the social pressures as they are or would prefer to work to change them? If so what would you do about it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:It starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us say we are sure the differences are due to misapplied social pressures.

      Creationists are quite sure evolution is wrong. That doesn't make them right. People being sure about something is a rather poor indicator of truth.

      Would you prefer to leave the social pressures as they are or would prefer to work to change them?

      I'd rather have misapplied social pressures due to wrong beliefs than willfull institutionalized reverse social pressure.

    3. Re:It starts at conception by callmetheraven · · Score: 1

      Let us say we are sure the differences are due to misapplied social pressures.

      Standard liberal idiocy. Conclusions first, cherry pick data second. The only social pressures that exist promote blacks at the expense of all others - yet they fail at, well, everything that doesn't involve a ball.
      How do "social pressures" maintain the sub-saharan IQ at 70?

      --
      You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    4. Re:It starts at conception by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Standard liberal idiocy.

      Moron. You're so wrapped up in your ideology that you are unable to recognise raising a point for the sake of argument and instead treat it sa an attack. I can safely conclude from this that you're more interestested in political yelling points than actually having a meaningful discussion.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:It starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us not say that, because it's bullshit. Women and men are different. You know what's worse than making men apologize for being men? Making women apologize for being women and making them feel like shit about it too.

    6. Re:It starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen plenty of your other comments on Slashdot. You're hardly the type who should be scolding other people for being "so wrapped up in their ideology" or calling anyone a "moron."

    7. Re:It starts at conception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd really like to know how the average income of these two groups - copy editors on one hand, IT workers on the other - compares.

      I'm a man, and I've actually worked in both of these sectors. Given the choice, I'd much rather be a book copy editor. But the pay is crap. So here I am in IT.

  18. Enough already by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Men have personalities. Women have personalities. They quite often very different. They lead people into different directions in life.

    Why aren't we asking why there aren't more "jocks" in science and why there aren't more "nerds" in sports? It's the SAME CAUSES.

    And every time the topic comes up, it invariably results in recommendations of making an environment more comfortable for the other party. And this push ALWAYS goes one direction without fail. So here it is.

    WHITE MEN: You must change everything about yourself. You are to blame for everyone else not being like you. Women don't want to work with you in your job and it's always YOUR FAULT. Black people never feel welcome or equal in your work place either and guess whose fault that is? That's right. It's your fault.

    Has no one ever wondered or asked why we're only pushing to have more diversity in a white man's environment? Why it's considered wrong for there to even be a white man's environment? Why is there no push for diversity in churches? Why is there a Korean Christian church around the corner? Why aren't there more Christians and Jews in mosques? There is a long, long list of things women do which men have no interest and yet no one is pushing for more diversity in those areas.

    Diversity is code for anti-white-male. Show me I'm wrong by pointing to an instance calling for diversity that isn't targetting while males?

    1. Re:Enough already by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a long, long list of things women do which men have no interest and yet no one is pushing for more diversity in those areas.

      You're really claiming there are "things" that women do that "men are just not interested in". You have no idea. Guess what: news at 11! there are social pressures on men as well as women (the modern lack of male primary school teachers is an excellent example of a bad social pressure).

      Until you admit that men and women are more diverse than you believe you will be entirely blind to social pressures which stop people being what they want to be.

      So, I call bullshit on your "long, long list of things" that "men have no interest in".

      There is certinly more variation within either gender than the average difference between genders in essentially every measurable way: there's 3.5 billion people in each and those tails go out quite a few standard deviations with that many people.

      But yet you've found a long, long list of things which 3.5 billion of the worlds population like ad no one in the other 3.5 billion likes. Oh and even better, it's completely innate!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women have personalities

      No they don't.

    3. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Men and women's personalities are shaped by the culture we're raised in.

      And it doesn't discount the very real problem that women and minorities who do like technology, etc, are being ostracized.

      Diversity is not code for anti-white male. We don't want less white males interested in the stuff, we want more of everybody else. Diversity is great when it can be obtained. It's great for problem solving where a bunch of people with different backgrounds and experiences can come together to solve a problem. A bunch of similar people will generally come up with the same ideas to solve a problem. Different people will generally come up with different ideas to solve a problem.

    4. Re:Enough already by erroneus · · Score: 1

      ...and yet Germans make the best science things.

      You're repeating the smoke blown up your arse for your whole life. Reality is a very different picture.

      I was hoping people would latch onto the obvious causes why the changes in direction happen around highschool age. Hint: Puberty. The boys and girls want to be together, but not for being research partners in computer science class.

    5. Re:Enough already by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Why is there no push for diversity in churches?

      Well, I can't speak for your church; but, working to reach out and be more inclusive of the increasingly diverse neighborhood around my church is a recurring theme brought up at basically every council meeting. There certainly is a "push for diversity" in churches, if you go to the churches that value diversity --- rather than the ones filled with the members who fled the more diverse churches decades ago over the prospect of welcoming inter-racial couples, and later gays.

      You may not see "pushes for diversity" in many places because you surround yourself with like-minded racists and sexists. However, there's a lot of "push for diversity" going on all over (yes, in predominantly black and latino communities, too) among those who value freedom and equality of humankind.

    6. Re:Enough already by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

      Puberty, that was my first thought when I read that headline too. Not just the sexual aspect, though thats a factor but all that hormone change is hard on kids, good luck keeping focusecd on tehnical subjects while your adult bodily functions fluctuate and develop.

      I would think I, as being an awkward kid got hrough this stage by using my interests in computers as a distraction through a that time.

      --
      "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    7. Re:Enough already by dkf · · Score: 1

      Diversity is code for anti-white-male.

      Only in cultures where the dominant cultural gestalt is white-male and insists that everyone conform to that model, and then only because when you've got a culture that insists that everyone conforms, to insist on being different at all is to be a dissenter. You're just reacting as would be expected by someone who is a fully conforming minor member of the dominant culture, defending against any threat you perceive, no matter how small.

      You're a cultural lymphocyte. Congratulations!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    8. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people that believe in diversity are proof diversity is great and people that don't believe in diversity are defensive thus proof we need diversity. Doesn't really pass Popper falsifiability criteria.

    9. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Feminism is dealing with mens' issues already, so shut the fuck up!" -Chanty Binx

    10. Re:Enough already by Cederic · · Score: 1

      working to reach out and be more inclusive of the increasingly diverse neighborhood around my church is a recurring theme

      Yeah, hard to tithe people that don't Believe, isn't it.

    11. Re:Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also hard to tithe the people who are homeless and/or unemployed --- but we reach out to them, too. If the church I attended mainly focused on attracting high-tithing members, I'm sure the finance committee would be a lot happier. However, the finance committee doesn't run the operation. Quite often, the wealthier churches are not the more diverse ones. Welcoming the poor and marginalized into community has never been a lucrative endeavor.

    12. Re:Enough already by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. You never hear claims of racism or calls for diversity in professional basketball, yet it's predominately one race. The difference is that it's NOT predominately white.

    13. Re:Enough already by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's quite how it works. But then belief is stronger than fact so there's no point in discussing much further than this. But I would like to direct you to various European nations who have serious immigration problems and especially Sweden where the crime of rape was virtually non-existant before their immigration program started and now they are the rape capital of the world, not just of Europe, but the world. And that's just the tip of the iceburg. "Exclusion zones" don't exist in the US the way they do in other countries like England, but then again, we still have a second amendment and police who love to use their guns. People here would DEFINITELY not tolerate exclusion zones, but they are in many European countries already and growing.

      So yeah, "diversity" isn't working for them either. In theory it sounds like a great idea, but in practice, people like to be around and work with people who think and act more like themselves. We've all got our idea of what right, wrong, proper, acceptable and [especially] moral mean and they are all different. What could possibly cause more friction than that? Politics and religion, of course, with sex, sexuality and tech preferences not far behind.

      You should change your TV channel and seek other news sources. When you start seeing what's really going on out there, you might start to see things differently. In addition to the race related violence going on all over the world and in the US (despite suppressed and censored news) some of my favorite stories (bad choice of words) are the ones which keep popping up where "anti-racists" and other diversity pushers end up as a victim of their efforts either getting raped/gang-raped or killed.

      People who go around playing a social version of "Grizzly Man" with their lives often become victims of the very people they think they are helping. But given that you're writing in from the UK (is that right?) I guess I don't need to tell you about exclusion zones or anything that's going on in the EU. In a country that is supposed to be under the rule of law, how can ANYONE tolerate exclusion zones?

    14. Re:Enough already by dintech · · Score: 1

      You are arguing against a valid point and I'd like to know why. We are forever brainwashed with what makes any minority group of your choice special, protected and in need of expanding. If anyone tries to defend the rights of white males in such a way it's automatically treated as patriarchy or racism. Why the bigotry? What are you going to do when white men are the most oppressed group? It's already starting.

    15. Re:Enough already by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You are arguing against a valid point and I'd like to know why.

      What do you mean valid point? I think his point is crap and I've presented my arguemnt.

      Why the bigotry? What are you going to do when white men are the most oppressed group?

      lolwut? Bigotry? Did you even read my post? No.

      What does this have to do with me calling bullshit on his claim that there's a "long, long list of things that men just don't want to do"?

      Well...

      This is of course used to imply that the reason for the discrepeancy is down it some sort of innate thing. This is the sort of fuzzy headed claptrap that makes people like him unable to see that discrimination exists. As long as you ignore huge discrepencies and pretend it's somthing innate, you will continue to ignore the discimination and social pressures that cause it. That's a bad thing.

      Now what I don't understand is how you don't get that it cuts both ways, whether discrimination against men or women.

      Frankly if you don't get it, then despite your accusations of bigotry and defense of the white male, you'll be happily cheering on discrimination against the group you wish to defend because you will be unable to even see when it exists.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Enough already by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      this is quite funny. You only think the white man is being abused because you are obviously from a white dominated country (one where, for hundreds of years, white men were the only ones allowed to succeed by legal structures in place until rather recently and therefore, have a vast generational advantage in resources).

      In India they are trying to fix the same thing, that the Brahmin caste dominates most learned professions. This is slowly changing, but I've never heard cries of "their picking on us for being Brahmin), because at least it seems people realize that Brahmins for hundreds of years in society were given legal and societal protections to be the best at the knowledge industries and the fact that so many families of that caste now are high academic performers says a lot more about hundreds of years of being the only group to do it than about any inherent racial difference.

    17. Re:Enough already by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Instead of telling me what you think I think, how about showing me how this needless push for diversity does anything but attack the white man? Things may have been what they may have been, but today's history leaves a lot of questions to be answered for those who wonder how, if all white men are privileged and in control of the world, we would dare allow that to change.

      Comparing to India's Brahmin caste situation is, admittedly, a situation I am not familiar with. But even from your description, it doesn't address the question or problem.

      So in today's environment it is incredibly hard to point to the past when we've got 2-3 generations of affirmative action to make up for it; when we've got free and very discounted schooling for black people; when we've got incentives galore for minority owned business; when we've got most government jobs completely dominated by the black population (I'm talking about the postal service and a few others) and lots more. Has anything changed? One thing has changed. I have seen very few white on black crimes that weren't hoaxes perpetrated by the victims.

      And speaking of crimes, how about the media policy of censoring the race of perpetrators and victims when it's black on white but not the other way around? Not only are black people being coddled in welfare, in school, in employment but also in crime?! How surreal does the situation have to become before people sit up, take notice and start saying "Enough already!?"

    18. Re:Enough already by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not a needless push for diversity. It is looking for the primary drivers of large differences in participation (if you want more white people in basketball, have them grow in in the inner city where education is not nearly as valued as driving to the hoop, a great example is how most black players are terrible passers but excellent ball handlers because the latter is a desirable trait where most of them learn to play basketball) and asking are these structural (i.e. our rules make them more likely to happen) or not.

      In India, they came to the realization that it was structural and cultural and to cause a shift, they reserved 60% of all seats in medical school in the 60s and 70s for the underrepresented. But doing this, they attempted to build at least a generation of education and wealth in the traditionally discriminated classes to quickly change things. It helps it is a country that highly values education, but with this push, you end up with people who haven't gone to high school happily working 16 hour days 7 days a week so their children can become engineers (it was doctors 20 years ago, but every time I do these interactions, it seems to be more and more engineering). But it helped that they knew due to government policies if they could provide the money, and their kid worked hard, the seat was damn near guaranteed, even if there was a more qualified candidate on exams.

      My point is, if you haven't come up with why things are the way they are, or if there are structural (and at the very least, legal hurdles, including hurdles in the way the law is enforced) you can't come up with some conclusions that efforts at diversity or more or less helpful than the status quo. In the US, at least historically and against very specific minority groups, there were good reasons for aggressive policies to correct a wrong, whether the current set of rules were enough or not I don't know, I haven't done nearly enough research in all the programs and their efficacy.

      Just one note, government jobs are not dominated by black people. The post office is 73% white (non-hispanic) and 17% black as of the last numbers I could find (note, this is a bit out of date, the 2002 report on diversity to congress). Hispanics are very underrepresented, was my takeaway from it. I can't say much about media policies or whether race is mentioned or not, but I do know I'd need to see actual research on this, as compared to people's sense or feeling, as usually people hear what they want to (including me).

  19. Boys and girls are different by craigminah · · Score: 2

    Why do we all need to score the same or have the same fill rates in the various skilled jobs? Can't we all just agree that boys and girls are different and will excel at different things? Why does everything always have to be equal? So long as girls have opportunity to take science, math, etc. with no stigma then we've done our part.

    1. Re:Boys and girls are different by craigminah · · Score: 1

      ...and the various races are different as well (didn't see that part). We all (as populations) are better or worse at certain things, although individuals of any race or gender can excel at anything. Again, we need to ensure everyone has the opportunity to excel...whether or not they do is up to them.

    2. Re:Boys and girls are different by lancelet · · Score: 1

      The basic answer to this is that the observed innate statistical differences between (say) genders do not account for the observed outcomes in terms of things like employment rates.

      There are reported differences between male and female capabilities and aptitudes. However, these differences are FAR too small (seriously, spend some time Googling them), and have far too great a spread to account for the observed differences in outcomes. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the outcomes (employment rates, etc.) vary far more by country than the "intrinsic" gender differences, so even a cursory examination of the problem makes it ludicrous to claim that gender capabilities are driving the outcomes.

      You bring up a valid point of course, but it really has been addressed.

  20. I remain unfazed by tech social justice bullshit. by VortexCortex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    In some of these states, there simply aren't many students of any race or gender taking the test, which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities. (Indeed, no women or minorities took the exam in Wyoming—but that's because no students at all took it.) But Idaho had nearly 50 students taking it, and Utah had more than 100.'"

    Did you know that feminists and social justice warriors need funding for their political careers? Did you know they continue to purposefully present bad statistics and rely on misleading evidence to further their political goals and funds?

    You are now aware that Idaho is 93.8% white. and Utah is 91.8% white. The USA is 77% white, what's your fucking point? That minorities make up a minority? I really can't take anything else they say seriously. It's just that same old bullshit brain rot, like the wage gap myth. There are lots of sick folks in hospitals, doesn't mean hospitals make folks sick. Percentages enrolled and employed don't dictate school or employee policy. Men and women are different. Women and men make different choices and have different personality traits cross culturally. Yes, I'm generalizing, that doesn't limit the choice of individuals to point out trends. Get over it. However trotting out this tripe as news is just fucking dumb.

  21. Girls "grow up" faster than boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unlike boys that continue to be attracted by shiny toys until much later in their education cycle, girls are already understanding somewhere in high school that what they really want in life is a nice place called home where they can have a family and raise kids and have some sort of social life too. Working hectic hours on 6 months contracts all round the country while competing with hordes of temporary foreign workers obviously won't get them there. So they make different career choices. By 28-30 they already have a family while immature boys are still jerking over java syntax.

    1. Re:Girls "grow up" faster than boys by sylvandb · · Score: 1

      Unlike boys that continue to be attracted by shiny toys until much later in their education cycle...

      What do you mean "until much later" ? :)

      Just to make your point a bit more clearly in case anyone does not get it...

      I have four boys from 11 to 20. I work with "boys" ranging in age early 20's thru mid-60's. My father in law will be 69 this year and my father will be 80. There is not a single one of those "boys" that is not "attracted by shiny toys."

      I draped a roll of RGB LEDs over my desk in December. Guys stopped by to ask details about it every day. None of the passing women stopped except one that said, "those look nice."

      I bought some closeout LED decorative lights on New Years Eve. I was checking them out and all the guys in the extended family gathered around to see what was going on, what the lights could do, and etc. I could not get any of the women interested. Maybe next Christmas when they are decorating...

    2. Re:Girls "grow up" faster than boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an idiot--suggesting that men are immature because they enjoy science?

  22. What test? by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    exam data shows...

    18 percent of the students who took the exam ...

    some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year ...

    etc., etc. if you're wondering what the hell test is being talked about, you'll need to check the actual article to find it's the Advanced Placement computer science exam.

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    1. Re:What test? by tompaulco · · Score: 2

      exam data shows...

      18 percent of the students who took the exam ...

      some states where not a single member of one of these groups took the test last year ...

      etc., etc. if you're wondering what the hell test is being talked about, you'll need to check the actual article to find it's the Advanced Placement computer science exam.

      Yes, I read the article, too, and thus I think the whole thing can be thrown out. It is not appropriate to try to gather statistics about general enrollment in a discipline by the number of people who attempt to go for advanced placement in that discipline. Particularly if you are going by numbers where one of the largest states to participate had 50 whole people take the test. Many states had no one take the test, probably because they have their own standards for determining advanced placement, as probably do most school districts. It's not like there is a federal standard for determining whether a child can be in the AP computer science class.
      Talk about jumping to conclusions. Only John "Correlation is Causation" Tesh manages to abuse statistics more.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    2. Re:What test? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Well that makes their conclusion that the divide begins before college rather dubious, since the only reason to take the AP CS test is if the college/university you're planning to attend will give you credits for it. If they don't, you're throwing money down the drain by taking the test. (Not that I believe the divide is something caused by colleges - men and women are just interested in different things. But if you're starting from the premise that it's something caused by colleges, you can't disprove it with participation in a test based on college requirements.)

    3. Re:What test? by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      And how many schools even have an AP computer science class? Mine had a programming class, but not an APCS class. Of course, this was 15 years ago; things may have changed.

      I did take the APCS test, but I had to specially request it. I was the only one in the room taking the test, though there might have been one other person in my whole class who took it. Many students may not know it's available, even if you don't take an APCS class - or they may just not want to bother getting a test set up just for themselves.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    4. Re:What test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credit isn't the only importance to this - placement is also key. If you are able to start off ahead in the course cycle (starting with multivariable calc or linear algebra in math, organic rather than general chemistry, etc.) you have some slack built in to accommodate a semester where you couldn't get into a class you needed without pushing back graduation. You will also tend to come out with a stronger degree - rather than spending a semester on an extra 100 level class, you are able to delve deeper with an extra 300 or 400 level elective.

    5. Re:What test? by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      My HS (17 years ago) had a programming class too. It was IBM line basic (10 print "hello world" 20 goto 10)

    6. Re:What test? by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I graduated HS 17 years ago in Minnesota. When I was in HS, to take a AP class all you had to do was sign up for it along with your regular classes and meet the prerequisites. AP was just another level of regular HS that happened to count toward college, you didn't have to take any sort of test for it.

    7. Re:What test? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      It was the same when I went to school. At most, you needed a parent signature and a teacher recommendation. Even the curriculum was barely different between AP and regular classes. At my school, they only counted an extra .002 toward your GPA. ie, if you got straight As and had one AP class, you would have a 4.002 GPA. The only thing that kept me from taking them was scheduling conflicts because I was in band.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  23. Modern languages are biased by beaverdownunder · · Score: 0

    The biggest barrier to minorities becoming programmers is that modern languages have been designed to be efficient and understandable for white males.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, only noting that as languages have evolved, they've become less intuitive for non-core users. Women, for example, typically have no problem learning procedural programming. Pascal was a very popular training language in the 80s and 90s well understood by female students.

    So while I can agree with other commenters that modern languages require a certain aptitude, this is more by design than some inherent nature. The solution is to stop a one-sized-fits-all approach and consider different programming styles for different demographics.

    Segregation? Sure. But modern apps can already have various chunks written in different languages. There's scope there to use procedural (for example) where feasible.

    Why, you ask? Diverse voices make a better product.

    1. Re:Modern languages are biased by Paco103 · · Score: 1

      Um, what makes a language efficient and understandable for white males? I would buy your argument if it said "English speakers" - because absolutely most languages are designed for English speakers using English keywords, etc. But there are plenty of women and minorities that speak English natively, and I would argue that since these tests are all based in the US, most (not all) of the test takers (minorities and women included) probably spoke English as their native language.

      So tell me exactly how we're supposed to use a different style for different demographics, and how is that not discrimination? Are you suggesting women are capable of procedural programming, but not object oriented programming? In that case, they're not allowed to work on the same projects. We'd have the object oriented server, written by white men, the procedural client, written by women, and then the functional data services, written by minorities?

      This would seem to imply we should also require a different text book written in some kind of stereotypical dialect for the non-white-male in school.

      This really comes down to opportunity and desire. Desire is an internal factor, and if they don't want to do it don't force them, as long as they are getting the opportunity (and yes, I realize when it comes to school there are all kinds of socioeconomic issues at play).

    2. Re:Modern languages are biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do women have no problem understanding functional languages?

    3. Re:Modern languages are biased by benzapp · · Score: 1

      What he means to say is that he doesn't believe intelligence is genetic, and he believes East Asians and Chinese are "white".

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  24. It starts in the DNA by hessian · · Score: 1

    Genders, races, and social classes have different genetic makeups and hence different abilities.

    It's taboo to say this. You should ask yourself why.

    1. Re:It starts in the DNA by beaverdownunder · · Score: 1

      Well, except the 'ability' isnt programming per se, but programming in Java or Ruby. Let's be clear about that. People who have difficulty speaking English don't typically have a problem with language in general.

    2. Re:It starts in the DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a load of horseshit. Especially the "social classes" bit. There are plenty of rich idiots and talented poor people.

    3. Re:It starts in the DNA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure you understand how sex determination works.

      Can you point out the gene on the Y chromosome that confers interest in C++?

    4. Re:It starts in the DNA by inflamed · · Score: 1

      Genders, races, and social classes have different genetic makeups and hence different abilities.

      It's taboo to say this. You should ask yourself why.

      It's widely accepted that there are fewer genetic similiarities between individuals of the same 'race' as there are between individuals from different 'races.' There is tremendous overlap in most behavioural characteristics and physical abilities between male and female genders - most distributions appear bi-modal but in many cases 40+ % of the population falls on the side of the distribution attributed to the 'other' gender. You you refer to as taboo is taboo because it's wrong.

  25. Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High School by koan · · Score: 1

    It starts at birth, when they parents put pink clothes on the girl, and blue clothes on the boy.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  26. I've never seen a female pump porta-johns either. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    There are many ways to make money to reasons don't exist to pursue tech unless you are there purely for the tech and don't give a shit about routing around some of the social defectives in it. Men are conditioned for that sort of thing and most women are not.

      It's not nice to point that out but it's a standing joke for good reason.

    Medical fields will have strong growth for a lifetime and most cannot be outsourced. A better question then why there are fewer women in tech is why anyone is in it. Some folks can make very good money but most are expendable drones.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  27. coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I went to the Lynrd Skynrd reunion concert last year the crowd was nothing but aging white blue collar dudes and their fat wives. Clearly, there is a conspiracy to keep down women and People of Color.

  28. alaska by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with less than 4% of its population being black and 15% of them being native, its no wonder no black people took the exam

  29. Expert Careers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've noticed a statistically phenomenal lack of men in the crocheting business. There are some states where not a single man has signed up for a professional crocheting course, leaving an overwhelming ratio of women to men among the industry as a whole. What can be done to improve working conditions and better enforce equality between the genders?

    1. Re:Expert Careers by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, the local pole-dancing classes stipulate, "No men."

      Sexists bastards. I'd look good on a pole.

  30. Goals and aspirations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect that at least some of the cultural bias is about being the bread winner for a family. Want to major in music? Counselors tell boys to study Music Ed so they have a chance (albeit small) of getting a job; girls go into performance because it touches their soul. Same with other areas - engineering used to be the safe choice for boys; good jobs were available after graduation. If you were willing to take a higher risk you want for philosophy or biology and tried to get into Law or Med school.

    Notice I started with "culture" bias, not race or gender. Think about census statistics

  31. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I spent my first year and a half in pink clothes, as my parents -refusing to be told- were 'certain' they were getting a little girl.
    Still didn't make me want to be a pretty princess, and I still ended up building PLCs

  32. What test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid summary fails to mention it.

  33. Tech's gender is built in by iplayfast · · Score: 1

    I've had a daughter and two sons, and in my experience the tech gender is a built in thing. My daughter was the first born, and wanting to not push her into the dolls and such, I gave her a remote control car for Christmas when she was quite young. (1 1/2). She also had a doll. Guess which one got ignored.

    Couple of years later, boy was born. From birth, anything with wheels was fascinating to him. Same for my second son.

    Now all children have different personalities right from the beginning so my experience may not line up with yours, but I suspect that there is something natural about more boys liking tech then girls.
     

  34. Free to choose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an AP CS exam. At least in CA, CS is not required. Ergo, those students who took the test chose to take this class. Apparently, the aforementioned low represented groups, don't like CS. Shouldn't people be free to choose?

  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Oh Look. by ApplePy · · Score: 0

    It's another "evil white males holding down the rest of the planet" story. Yawn.

    Who invented computers in the first place? Or is it somehow "racist" to point that out?

    Also, money gives you and your family an advantage in life. This is news? Why else would anyone bother to do better for themselves, or bother to try and earn more than the minimum amount necessary to sustain life?

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    1. Re:Oh Look. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      it is my observation that "minorities" and women who want a certain career and work hard for it get it.

    2. Re:Oh Look. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Well, having stuff is kinda, y'know, nice. Maybe you only need a burlap sack to keep you warm in the winter, but it sure is nice to be able to curl up by a fire with a cup of your favorite hot beverage. I think that's enough of a reward without, say, being systematically rewarded for having wealth.

      If you won the lottery tomorrow, would you completely stop pursuing self-improvement? You'd never work on a project again? I think that says more about you than it does about the necessity of continuing institutionalized wealth-based discrimination.

    3. Re:Oh Look. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      And it's my experience that rich "white" men who want a certain career get it without working for it. For a nice example, see our last president.

    4. Re:Oh Look. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you're funny, I know a "black" man who also did nothing whatsoever to merit being president nor senator nor receiving Nobel peace prize....but there he is.

    5. Re:Oh Look. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's my experience that rich people who want a certain career get it without working for it.

    6. Re:Oh Look. by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      being systematically rewarded for having wealth.

      What kind of nonsense commie bullshit is that? Of course you're rewarded for wealth... you can buy more shit, nicer shit, and not give a shit. What is wealth? It's the reward for doing shit. Doing more than someone else. Even if you are wealthy because of committing crimes, you are rewarded for taking risk.

      You want more for yourself? Go fucking get it. Or do you just want others you are envious of to have less? Either way, it does say an awful lot about you as a person, doesn't it....

      If you won the lottery tomorrow, would you completely stop pursuing self-improvement?

      On the contrary. I'd *start* pursuing self-improvement... well, I already do, but I'd have more time for it.

      I think that says more about you than it does about the necessity of continuing institutionalized wealth-based discrimination.

      I'm pretty sure you misunderstood somehow what I wrote. Not surprising from someone who uses phrases like "institutionalized wealth-based discrimination" to describe a phenomenon that a) has been around since the beginning of time, b) is natural as sunrise, c) is never going to change no matter what, and d) when politicians use it, is code for "continue taxing the middle class out of existence by playing on their petty jealousies".

      Ya know... if I want more out of life, and someone else has it, I'll steal it honestly, the old-fashioned way.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    7. Re:Oh Look. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look who's making themselves out to be the victim again.

      You know who also thought he was oppressed? Hitler.

    8. Re:Oh Look. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well done on not overlooking Hillary Clinton and being sexist.

    9. Re:Oh Look. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      If the only thing that wealth brought you was nicer things, that'd be fine. Economic mobility would be high, being born to poor parents wouldn't stack the odds against you, rich people would eventually lose their accumulated wealth by spending it (as opposed to being able to live off of interest), everyone would receive a level education, etc etc etc.

      But then again, you think "commie" is an insult. :)

    10. Re:Oh Look. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nonsense, Obama just had connections not money

  37. You're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Woman in med school here (with an obvious interest in tech stuff, since I'm on this site in the first place). Personally, my reasons for not pursuing a tech career boil down to the fact that it simply doesn't pay off as well as being a doctor does, and not being from the US, I don't have to worry about college fees either, so there was simply no reason not to go to med school. Thus, programming remains as a hobby for me, perhaps forever.

    1. Re:You're right by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Makes sense to me. That doesn't explain the dearth of women in tech, though, because men should have the same financial motivation to become doctors as you do.

  38. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by koan · · Score: 1

    How many other parents do that? Why are frilly pink things what see for sale? Boys get guns girls get dolls, Think about it, you know, without the defensive attitude.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  39. Hello Women. What do you say? by germansausage · · Score: 1

    Why don't we ask the women? Survey young women at different stages oh high school and university. Ask them what they would like to have a career in. Maybe ask the smart ones why they chose not to go into CS.

    Any women reading slashdot right now who didn't go into CS care to tell us why?

    1. Re: Hello Women. What do you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After I mentioned I wanted to do something technical the school career advisor (female) told me I should apply to study either engineering or computer science at University as "You'll definitely get a place because you're a girl" It didn't go down well with me at 17 when I was a straight A for 5 A-levels student and very very proud of being top of the class. It left me with the idea that my gender was more important than my abilities and it pissed me off so much I dropped all thoughts of the subjects as I wanted to be damn sure I would be judged by ability alone. In retrospect I wish I'd reacted much less like an stroppy teenager and taken full advantage of the girls only scholarships etc but back then my reaction was to start reading every bit of feminist literature I could find and getting even more pissed off.

    2. Re: Hello Women. What do you say? by germansausage · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I always like to hear actual experiences rather than assume I know what other people are thinking. My daughter got best in school marks in math and science, as well as in fine arts (drawing and painting). I would have been happy if she had decided to go into engineering like me, but I tried to not pressure her in any way. She ended up choosing to study urban planning, which has both hard science and creative and design aspects.

    3. Re:Hello Women. What do you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TLDR: I'm undecided whether or not to major in CS. I've had great and not-so-great experiences with what little I've experienced in the field.

      I'm a (white, female) high school junior who's been programming for about half a year. I'm not quite who this question is directed to, but thought I'd answer anyway.

      As a kid I was very much pushed into the "creative" as opposed to the "logical" fields. An assumption I often encountered in school and at home was that girls enjoy reading and boys enjoy math/science-and one can't enjoy both (I still see this now). On standardized exams I would routinely max out the English/reading tests and score within the top 10-15% on the mathematics tests; but I was encouraged frequently by my parents to "do what I was good at" and "make use of my strengths," the implication being that I was "bad" at math. Over the years I developed, silly as it sounds, a fear of math and the sciences, because my perfectionism couldn't bear to see anything less than top marks. I stuck to what I was best at and shied away from much else. (I think, also, that the lack of female role models helped fuel this attitude of mine. Seeing only Gates, Jobs, and a plethora of exclusively male scientists in school, I felt (stupidly, but hey, I was a child) that science and technology weren't "for" me).

      During middle school, after I had read many, many classics (needing a break from the angst!), I sought something new to study in my free time, and that's when I discovered my passion for physics and astronomy. I taught myself a bit of calculus so that I could better understand some of its concepts. By high school, I was certain I wanted to be a physicist, but after discovering all it entailed (8+ years of school, several years of postdocs, then a well-paid job) I decided it wasn't for me: I loved (and still love) physics, but wanted to spend my twenties establishing my career-not preparing for it. No longer afraid of STEM fields, I decided to look into something I had read about during my physics studies, and that had caught my interest: programming. It was love at first sight.

      Let me diverge here a moment and say that it pains me to read things such as "Girls just aren't interested in hard sciences." Do I think gender (/biology) has no affect on interests? No. Were culture/socialization removed, there would probably not be a 50-50 split in every career. But a 90-10 male-female split in CS is almost certainly not due to "innate preferences" (and we must also remember that each person is unique, and that just because an average female is attracted to one career, that does not mean all of them are). I think the attitude ought to be "What can we do to get girls interested in these classes?". This is not the same as "Girls must be forced to take these classes!". I wish I had been introduced to science and programming sooner: I would have had more time to better my skills. I imagine, were girls exposed more frequently and earlier to an interesting science curriculum, they would be less likely to strike it off as "not for them". (For the record, I think we should be getting more boys into the field as well!)
      Also, the reason people worry about female representation in CS/EE (and other similar fields) but not about the number of girls in, say, garbage collecting, is because CS and other fields require much creativity and input, and potentially the field is losing "half" these ideas. Garbage collecting and oil drilling do not require these.

      Back to my anecdote: I love programming. I'm not great, mind you: I'm a bit of a slow learner in this area, and I had much trouble in the beginning. But it's the most challenging, interesting thing I've ever done. Yet I am not sure if I wish to pursue it as a career. This is partly because of the atmosphere: between Titstare, the common attitude of "Girls just aren't into programming," the quick dismissiveness of any sexism in the industry, and studies that show women are likely to be paid less in scientific fields and be penalized for salary negotiations, I am

  40. Negative influences long after 1992 by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    >I don't believe that there are any negative influences early on dissuading women from working tech.

    There are, documented in the stories of hundreds of women in computer science at CMU. It starts in childhood and continues all through school, only to be followed by people at a job fair saying "we're not looking for anyone in marketing" as a software developer hands over her resume.

    See the book "Unlocking the Clubhouse".

    The CMU students were really bright and highly motivated. Anything pushing out people like that needs to be fixed!

  41. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take social pressure due to unconscious bias over willful counter pressure advocated by "well-meaning" ideologues. The first will always be milder and can be overcome, the second will only create more problems than it solves. Besides your theory doesn't seem falsifiable. Any evidence of the contrary is seen as proof that social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it.

  42. Diversifying the tech industry is a prominent topi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? It doesn't matter what race or sex an engineer is.It just matters that they're good at it.

  43. Courtesy of you Corporate/Government Overlords: by cookYourDog · · Score: 1

    Be more the same. How dare any of you serfs think or act differently!?

  44. I'd definitely like to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More female cab drivers. It's a field that is currently being dominated by men and it could really use an injection of diversity.

  45. About right.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could have kept it simple, the fact has always been there that schools are for training people to be workers not thinkers. And thus this study really does not matter.

    There jamming or trying to, programming down kids throats, in hopes of either getting them to seek it out as they get older, or the schhols will implement more rigorous classes forcing kids to take it on as part of there grades.

    May be extreme, but I had to take metal shop, or they would fail me out of school, but I didn't mind because my grandfather and dad both worked on hot rods, so it was something I wanted to pursue..

  46. Life is high school, more at 11. by fuckface · · Score: 0

    Big fukn surprise that the girls who belittled us in high school and college might have a hard time dealing with the social outcasts they themselves created later on in life. Remember, ladies, cosplay says you're slutty, not necessarily nerdy. There's a difference.

  47. WTF womyn-born-womyn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you mean "born woman" stead of "Transgender Woman"

  48. Re:I remain unfazed by tech social justice bullshi by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

    For somebody on a high horse about misusing statistics you're abusing them yourself. The government counts many Hispanics as white, so if you're reading an article on Hispanics the white population is useless What you want is non-hispanic white. And in both states that's under 90% Utah is actually under 80% at 79.9%, Idaho is 3.6 points higher (83.5%). The states combined should have had 15 Hispanic test-takers. They had 6. Which means that if your "personality" test is applied to Hispanics you just argued that Hispanics only have the proper "personality" for programming at 40% the rate of whites.

    It's also interesting to note that you assume they're arguing racism when they didn't say anything about racism. In fact given that anybody can take the class, and take the test, the test-administrators have no control over the racial makeup of test-takers. You can blame things like the design of local school districts, which has been referred to as "structural racism". AP classes ain't cheap, so a school district with an upper-class (and thus disproportionately white) tax base is gonna have more AP tests. OTOH you could also blame black and hispanic parents for not forcing their districts to have AP classes.

    It's also pretty telling to me that your source is an unrelated debate from the Reagan years. In my experience conservatives have been running off the fumes of Reagan's ideas for decades. "Sowell won a debate that had nothing to do with AP Tests back when he had an Afro" just is not a convincing counter-argument to anything in 2014.

  49. Exception disproves the rule argument. by hessian · · Score: 1

    There are plenty of rich idiots and talented poor people.

    I assume this is your argument, as it is.

    Exceptions-disprove-the-rule fallacies are very popular on the left, which you're obviously a member of. Let me caution you first: liberalism is a mental health disorder that leads to narcissism. You have been warned. Turn toward a reality-based narrative instead!

    There are many people out there without five fingers on each hand.

    And yet, humans have five fingers on each hand.

    Can you see why your argument was fallacious?

  50. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by sylvandb · · Score: 1

    How many other parents do that? Why are frilly pink things what see for sale? Boys get guns girls get dolls, Think about it, you know, without the defensive attitude.

    Because that really is what most little girls choose.

    I have boys (now ages 11 to 20). Then got a little girl (now age 4.25). The little girl is and always has been very different from the boys. She started picking out clothes she liked before she could walk. None of my boys cared until much later. The girl chose pink clothes even tho she had almost none since she outgrew the "new baby" gifts (most of which were neutral yellow and white). My wife is not a "pink, frilly" type, but my little girl is. We had to buy more pink and frilly stuff.

    Christmas 2012 at age 3, my little girl "adopted" a particular wrapping paper (pastel, blue field with white angels and some other minor colors) and came to tears when a package with that paper was not for her, and refused to have anything to do with packages wrapped in a color she particularly disliked that year. My boys never cared about the paper and certainly never turned down the chance to open any present.

    My wife is not a "let's go shopping" type. My little girl is. She wants to go shopping for shoes, or for dresses, something my mother-in-law still has to drag my wife out to do. At age 3 she didn't much care for dolls. She did like stuffed toy cats but her favorite toy was a green john deere tractor (sit on and kick it around it size). Last summer my little girl noticed an older cousin had painted fingernails and wanted it on her own fingers. My wife never wears nail polish (and seldom makeup). My little girl has started taking care of a "baby doll," but last november when a friend just wanted to play with barbie dolls, after less than 10 minutes of that came the response, "I'm not a barbie kind of girl" (as reported in shock by the mother of the other girl).

    My little boys played with blocks. They made roads that cars would drive on. They made buildings and towers to knock them down. My little girl plays with blocks. She makes houses where people (and animals) live. She makes roads so the people can visit each other. She makes towers so the people can be on top and see each other. The little girl makes forts with blankets and boxes. They are places where people live and she brings all her stuffed animals in with her and they eat and play together. The boys made forts with blankets and boxes. They were hideouts, and the associated play had monsters and missiles, traps and battles.

    And little boys will make a gun or a car or a plane or a bomb out of anything.

  51. This is different in other countries by BarneyGuarder · · Score: 1

    A lot of the posts here seem to be some version of "This just shows that women aren't cut out for CS." My experience makes me think this may be an American issue.

    I have been working in electrical engineering for 16 years. (I know, not CS but chip design is a tech field with commonalities.) It is a majority male field with approximately 15%-20% women. However, NONE of them that I see were raised in America. Most of the women I work with completed undergraduate degrees in China or India and got a graduate degree in the US. There must be some reason why American women are repelled from engineering. Or is it that Chinese and Indian women are just fundamentally better at tech than American women? (Before anyone brings up the H1 visa issue, that's not what is going on here. We have a hard time finding qualified candidates regardless of where they are from.)

    It would seem that the fact that we (in the US) socialize girls from a very early age to stay away from thins like tech is relevant here. If you are curious, go into any major toy store (e.g. Toys R US, the independent stores are actually a lot better about this.) There are vanishingly few toys that are just toys anymore. There are only "girls" and "boys" toys. The girls toys are all pink and predominately princess themed. Now, you may say that this just confirms that boys and girls are different but you would be using circular logic to justify a pre-concieved notion.

    Children are very sensitive to societal norms, both boys and girls. When high school girls feel that being too smart will make them less feminine and threaten boys, they will have a tendency to conform to these expectations. Sure, there will be some who don't but they will be fighting the system to some degree.

    Saying that the low percentage of women in CS is proof that women don't like or aren't good at CS is simply pointing to the current state of affairs as a justification that it is the only possible way things can be. The reality is more nuanced.

    1. Re:This is different in other countries by russotto · · Score: 1

      I have been working in electrical engineering for 16 years. (I know, not CS but chip design is a tech field with commonalities.) It is a majority male field with approximately 15%-20% women. However, NONE of them that I see were raised in America. Most of the women I work with completed undergraduate degrees in China or India and got a graduate degree in the US. There must be some reason why American women are repelled from engineering. Or is it that Chinese and Indian women are just fundamentally better at tech than American women?

      Or is there something (like money and the chance to move OUT of China and/or India) which drives Chinese and Indian women into tech when they would normally be repelled?

    2. Re:This is different in other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because India and China have authoritarian cultures where if your family decides you're going to be an engineer because that is the fastest path to a big salary then that's what you're going to do. In America we give our kids the freedom to do what they want with their life, if that means being an adjunct teaching Women's Studies or whatever, hey, it's a free country.

    3. Re:This is different in other countries by neminem · · Score: 1

      I've seen some really depressing stories, but also extremely useful in countering these sorts of allegations, about a number of infants who had genitalia-related accidents long before they would have had any ability to remember - boys who were thus raised as girls. They were treated entirely like they were girls, but 100% entirely still wanted to play with "male" toys and do other stereotypically male-child activities very early on.

      I'm not saying societal norms don't exist, they do. I'm not saying it isn't stupid that, just because boys are more *likely* to want to play with computers or science kids or action figures that shoot realistic bullets or whatever, those sorts of toys are marketed *exclusively* to boys, leaving girls who do want to play with them anyway feeling left out and/or weird: that is definitely stupid. But boys *are* more likely to want to play with those sorts of things, on average, and girls *are* more likely to want to play with dolls.

      Thus, it is not at all weird to think that guys might also be somewhat more likely to want to fiddle with electronics when they grow up, too, even if they were completely in a social vacuum. Are there social reasons too? Sure, there probably are - if nothing else, the fact that a group of mostly guys in an office might well act like a group of mostly guys anywhere else, and that environment wouldn't really be as enticing to most girls, which is kinda too bad, but anyway. The *reasons* for it being mostly guys in the first place, are not totally social, just partially.

      (I would argue that the girls with CS degrees from outside the US, partially there *is* probably less of a culture of 'girls don't like coding, you're weird if you do and we'll make fun of you', yes, but also something to do with more of a culture of seeing that it's a good job, and caring more about career.)

  52. Having a gap in interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    should not be translated into women and minorities being less capable. This unfortunately seems to be the prevailing opinion.

    1. Re:Having a gap in interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capability plays a big part in interest. If you find something difficult you are far less likely to be interested in doing it.

  53. How many black or hispanics are there in Alaska? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So just how many blacks or hispanics are there up in Alaska anyway? Perhaps it's just me but I have the feeling it's not that many of them. It seems kinda silly to just look at these number without crossreferencing them with say population density demographics or something like that or how many schools in a given area even gives AP CS classes, or is that something that they all give? More schools should lead to more takers shouldn't it?

  54. Re: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you advocate? Punishing little girls that act like little girls till they conform to your expectations of gender equality? Even if you're right about social pressure, that won't solve anything.

  55. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by koan · · Score: 1

    I'll take social pressure due to unconscious bias

    But it isn't "unconscious" is it? People can clearly see that a boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl, so they consciously act in a manner according to gender.

    willful counter pressure advocated by "well-meaning" ideologues

    Am I advocating something? Please point out where I am advocating anything, I am pointing out the obvious.

    Besides your theory doesn't seem falsifiable

    It isn't "my" theory, you actually believe I alone came up with gender bias starting at birth ? (actually before now that you can know the sex) I'm flattered, but you're wrong.

    Why don't you Google it a bit, it seems to me new ideas may be more palatable to you if you discover them yourself.

    Besides your theory doesn't seem falsifiable Any evidence of the contrary is seen as proof that social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it.

    So it doesn't seem "falisifiable", but if it was. it would be wrong any way.

    Why don't you point out

    social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it

    to a gay person, point it out to anyone that doesn't "fit in".
    And most certainly I am not blind to it.

    You didn't write this post to me, it isn't a reply to me, it's an internal dialogue you're having with yourself.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  56. Re: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Scho by koan · · Score: 1

    Again AC, I advocate nothing do I?

    If you haven't got the balls to post with your name, don't bother me with your lack of reading comprehension again,.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  57. In high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    peer pressure, conformity, and appealing to the opposite sex is more important than anything else. But the trouble with science and math is that formal education makes it a shitty thing to study.

  58. And the reason for that is probably social as well by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    The most likely explanation is that most of those societies are poorer and tend to place far higher levels of prestige in degrees that tend to hold lasting value in the marketplace. Engineering is one of the very best examples of that. Can you even imagine a woman who isn't literally intending to turn her degree into nothing more than a chance to find a husband in India or China saying to her parents that she'd turn down a prestigious engineering school to study Political Science, Art History, Women's Studies, "Business" (of which she could learn more by running a food truck than going to most Business Schools)? Of course not.

    Let's be a little logical about this. Western women have far more social freedom than Eastern Women. If there is any region less likely to suppress women from following their natural desires it'd be us. Eastern Women are not different creatures from ours. The difference is that engineering is more prestigious there and there is a much higher need for Eastern Women to major in something worth a damn because the consequences of getting a shitty degree that confers no middle to upper class prospects is much higher.

  59. Racial equality is assumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know people are going to hate me for this, but why do we assume that all races are equally capable of a job?

    While it might be a stereotype, certain races are already known for certain personality traits, such as the irish being fighters and drinkers, the asians being good at math, etc. etc. Yet when it comes to intelligence it's considered taboo to say that one race might be more or less intelligent than another.

    In other words, maybe there is a racial gap in tech because there is a racial gap in intelligence. It's no different than the racial gap in sports, based on differences in physical ability. Basketball started out as a completely white sport, yet it became predominately black because black men make better basketball players. Maybe white men just make better programmers?

    1. Re:Racial equality is assumed by neminem · · Score: 1

      Regardless of whether it's taboo or not - I agree with you, it shouldn't be taboo to state a hypothesis, merely to claim you know a clearly obviously false statement is true based on no evidence - it is clearly incorrect. Studies *have* been done as to whether there are any racial difference in intelligence, and no, there aren't. "Races" aren't known for any of those things you mention outside of very clearly racist people - *cultures* are. It's not racist to assume that an Irish guy from Ireland who lived his whole life there is fairly likely to enjoy drinking beer, but it is totally racist to assume that a guy who's lived his whole life in Idaho is more likely to enjoy drinking beer than his neighbors, just because his parents were Irish. Asians are good at math because there exists a culture that values bookishness; (American) Mexicans tend to not be so good at math entirely because they *don't* have such a culture.

      On the other hand, there is very clear evidence that biological gender differences do exist - not so much in ability, but definitely in interest. I wouldn't want to argue that the gap is entirely genetic in nature, but it is definitely a major factor. Race? Not so much.

  60. Self determination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone ever think that people just pick what they want to do? I have yet to see some secret group working to keep woman and minorities out of science and engineering. Are teachers using telepathy or jedi mind tricks to keep them out? There is no difference between this and finding women and minorities in comic books. Marvel rewrote history making some traditional characters black, which was stupid. This was for the guilt someone must have had for turning away women and minorities from being artists and writers way back when. Finally, this is just like the gap between rich and poor. It's a created boogieman to further social justice to raise a few by lowing many. Socialists and communists belong in the infernal region...

  61. Re: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Implying women don't have courage because they lack balls. How sexist!

  62. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't see why liking frilly pink outfits has anything to do with programming ability? seems like all these feminist dads are worried that if their kid wears a pink outfit they'll end up having to go into corporate law instead of programming or something...if they like pink shit build them a pink computer with a pink theme desktop environment.

  63. Percentage of women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I don't need to tell you that women make up about half.)

    Actually, on Slashdot, you probably do.

  64. Doesn't it start younger than HS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember from when I was a kid that it generally was boys who were into computers and video games. Isn't that were it starts? Those nerdy kids got computers as teenagers and then went on to do comp sci or engineering degrees. It starts with the cool toy factor and goes from there.

  65. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My original sentence

    Any evidence of the contrary is seen as proof that social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it.

    Your last quote of me

    social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it

    Kind of dishonest to cut the sentence in this way.

    But it isn't "unconscious" is it? People can clearly see that a boy is a boy, and a girl is a girl, so they consciously act in a manner according to gender.

    What would be unconscious would be the parents treating girls and boys differently even though they insist they treated them the same. Your second sentence is a false implication.

    It isn't "my" theory,

    "Your theory" was a shorthand for "the theory you subscribes to" not for "the theory you came up with".

    Besides your theory doesn't seem falsifiable Any evidence of the contrary is seen as proof that social pressure is so prevalent people have become blind to it.

    So it doesn't seem "falisifiable", but if it was. it would be wrong any way.

    Contrary refers to the theory itself not to its falsifiability. English is not my native language so I may have wrote it incorrectly. Still, it's completely disinginuous to understand "contrary" as refering to "falsifiability" as the sentence makes no sense that way. Besides, I've never say I believe the theory is wrong.

    Am I advocating something? Please point out where I am advocating anything.

    Please point out where I included you among the "well-meaning" ideologues that advocate something.

  66. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Eythian · · Score: 1

    Yeah, she's totally not influenced by the myriad of other social cues around the place. Or, you know, one sample might just not be enough of a sample size to support/refute the OP's assertion in capital letters.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

  67. look at what it's teaching! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The AP Computer Science exam is based on Java -- therefore, I believe that all these women are simply intelligent enough to realize what a waste of time and money taking the test would be.

  68. It's Not Just Women by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

    People in tech are treated like shit because, lo and behold, the tech field is inundated with a bunch of misanthropic , autistic nerds. And that is how it should be.

  69. exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is going to pay $89 to take a test which doesn't help you get into college. Colleges don't look at how well you did on these exams period. It's like applying for college and listing that you were in Who's Who of ... It's all just a marketing sham. And to all the posters that think their statistics are significant, well you've just been taken in, by all means go spend your $89 dollars for another phony certificate. I'm sure you will be promptly accepted into the most highly prestigious online university.

  70. Re:female tech ceos are failures by inflamed · · Score: 1

    The stock market reflects the prevalent views of entitled stockholders. Even when it reflects their sexism, it never fails. Circular reasoning?

  71. Affinity Groups versus Intolerance by kervin · · Score: 1

    Why is there a Korean Christian church around the corner?

    Minority populations ( however defined, could be white homosexual males for instance ) often find that they have needs that are not shared with the larger population. For instance Korean Christians may find that they don't speak English well enough to attend regular service. So they form a church that takes care of those special needs.

    That in general what an affinity group is suppose to do. If there are needs that the white male population requires that are not fulfilled by the general population, then that population definitely should have an affinity group.

    Don't be hateful. There are many groups out there we don't belong to that require support. I have no idea what a Homosexual Caucasian Male goes through, but I'm sure the experience can be bad enough that he may require the support of his peers.

    And by the way, that's your example right there. Sexual tolerance campaigns aren't "anti-white-male" as you put it because they help large numbers of homosexual white males.

    1. Re:Affinity Groups versus Intolerance by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Everyone is a minority if you divide people enough. There is always "diversity." I would, instead of division, prefer something more unifying. Wouldn't you?

      That's the thing though isn't it? I'm born a white male and I will not feel guilt from it. Lots of people do. Others simply fear being accused of not feeling guilty. I won't do that either. We're the new scape goat -- the thing which is "intolerant" of others which must be tamed, reduced and extinguished.

      No one "requires" special support outside of their friends and families. It's the way things are supposed to be. Instead, there seems to be a push to reduce our friends and families and to hand over that role to something else. Collectivism vs Individualism. That's the thing isn't it?

      BTW, I was calling for an example of a call for diversity that isn't targeting white males as the blame. Who is to blame for the cause you claim? You just created a new group by dividing up a larger whole. It wasn't an answer by any stretch.

      White males aren't quite as intolerant as the collective "minorities" have been led to believe. (In fact, hasn't it been amazing that the most recent news stories of white male intolerance have been proven to be complete hoaxes?) What we want is to be allowed to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. These white males in the US have paid dearly for that time and time again. Not my ancestors, of course -- mine didn't come to the US until an early part of the 20th century. But so many did. White males fought to give women the right to vote and many other things all while somehow managing to maintain their female privilege no less. And black people also owe much to the white male because they fought and died for them did they not? It wasn't the black man in America who liberated himself was it? And despite that, it's rare (so rare that I've never heard it) that you hear a black man thank a white man for ending slavery in the US. Instead, there is just blame for it hapening in the first place (something which can be blamed as much or more on black men for their involvement and participation -- learn about Anthony Johnson -- the first chattel slave owner in North America)... well, that and loads of affirmative action and special funding just for being born in a particular configuration.

      There are no "White Males" anyway. Most of us donn't feel a kinship with one another. We don't have a secret handshake. We don't give each other breaks "because we're brothers." We earn our way in life as much as we can and we expect the same of others. We are the least unified of any "group" to the point that we aren't a group at all. (Which incidentally, makes us a pretty good target for blame... what with no support group to defend us from attack? Certainly there is no NAAWP right?) If there is one thing we are "intolerant" of (and I'm not saying we are unified in this it's just me and others like me), it would be the free rides and "special support" needed by everyone else who somehow believe they are inferior and cannot make their way on their own without blaming someone else. But even that is somehow a problem of our own making isn't it? If we didn't attempt to help others when we thought they might have needed it, they wouldn't be targeting us with blame would they? Good deeds rarely go unpunished.

      And to be clear I'll say this:

      White males are the least privileged of all. We get no special treatment or consideration. We get no special programs of any sort. What we do have are some reputations which differ from others in some ways. Most of those reputations are contrasting to others. For example, cab drivers will pick up a white male. That didn't happen by accident. And it's a trust which was earned through lots and lots of demonstrations of worthiness. But that's not "priviledge" is it? It's reputation. When it's about black males, it's also about reputation, but when it affects them, it's racism.

      Here I go off on a needless continuance, but it just occurred to m

  72. because it's not what they fancy by kervin · · Score: 1

    Unless you also believe minorities have little interest in Computer Science.

    A lot of kids are told from very early they can not do these jobs. That they futures are set and what's in store for them require very little schooling.

    These kids fancy more for themselves. But are taught that they can not achieve what they fancy.

    That is why many observers believe this is more than just about students doing what they want.

  73. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by koan · · Score: 1

    Still running as AC eh?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  74. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by koan · · Score: 1

    But the only way you would know that is if they told you or showed you a picture, you sure they aren't messing with you? (a joke)

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  75. As long as we're making stuff up. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    A lot of kids are told from very early they can not do these jobs.

    By whom? In what way?

    But are taught that they can not achieve what they fancy.

    Would an alternative solution be to load-shed this generally useless education system, and opt for more home schooling, then? Discuss.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  76. There are a lot of things people don't know by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    People don't know what "correlation" and "causation" mean in the first place.

    From the TFA:

    ... which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities

    What is the definition of "Minorities" ?

    What is the percentage of the Asians (particularly the yellow-skinned East Asians and the Asians from the Indian Subcontinent) vis-a-vis the percentage of the Latinos-Americans / African-Americans, of the entire population of the United States of America ?

    I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that the Asian-Americans will be the fewest of the three groups.

    Would that entitle them with the term of " MINORITIES " ?

    Apparently TFA doesn't think so.

    Look at the enrollment of the Asians (men and women) in the tech courses and you will see how ridiculous TFA is.

    In some EE classes, there are MORE female Asian students than male African-Americans attending.

    Care to explain to me why Slashdot carries such crappy "news" in the first place ??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:There are a lot of things people don't know by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, in a decade or two minorities will dominate the tech and science fields once whites are no longer the majority race in America.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  77. Just because you are dirty minded ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't make everybody shares your mind.

    Try this, if you are a guy in tech who doesn't get it: When you encounter a reasonably good-looking (by your standards) woman with a similar professional background, is your thought process about her professional work (e.g. language or OS choices, server configurations, algorithm ideas), or is your thought process about how you might be able to get her into bed? If it's about her work, congratulations, you aren't part of the problem

    I have been in the tech field since the 1970's, and my children (both male and female) are also in the tech field.

    Since you're talking about how women have been treated and seems to place the blame solely on the male group - why don't you ask the female why they dropped out so easily in the first place ?

    Sure, my girls (more than one), when they were studying, did face some of those awkward situations, but they toughed it out.

    For them, their gender doesn't give them any reason to play the role of the "victim" every time a male geek tried to make some nerdy advance on them.

    And my children are not the exception either. Many of the Asian kids, both male and female, toughed out all kinds of harassment (not only sexual, but also racial) because for them what is important is not the hindrance, but how to achieve the goal.

    Just because your culture brought up females who will run out crying at a drop of a hat does not make the male species guilty of whatever you allude them of doing !

    Enough of the blaming loop !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  78. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    I have actually tried to steer her away from pink, frilly crap, and since she inherited her father's strong will, she refuses to budge.

    Good for her.

    I mean that.

    But anyway, firstly pink for girls is a 100% social construct (pink used to be for boys 100 or so years ago). But, your daughter is subjected to immense peer pressure.

    Second, girs do like bright shiny colourful things, but so do boys. In fact so do adults but they're generally better at suppressing it. Nonetheless, there's a reason sports cars are generally not matte grey.

    Third it doesn't matter: they can still grow up to be scientists if that's what they want. Playing with dresses and dolls as a kid doesn't alter that.

    Fourth, while you're there to guide your kid and influence where you can, if you try to force her in to being something she's not in order to please you, then you will be disappointed, and she will be upset.

    Finally, your kids probably won't grow up to be tech geeks. Most of the population (male or female) is not.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  79. Amen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to buy the lie about women having more empathy. But this article hits the nail on the head.
    After being sexually harassed by several *female* doctors, I must agree. Women have better ability to
    read people and a better ability to communicat, but they don't always use those abilities well. Men seem apathetic because _many_ are. BUT, the men who are able to empathize keep their distance exactly because it can be draining.

  80. I wanna be a porn star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, why aren't there more fat men in porn, we need to equalize that.

    Let's put a quota on everything so I can get me some porn roles.

  81. And being white no excuse for Apple Pie eating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realise that there is no connection to your whiteness and eating apple pie, but then again, there was nothing between the parent post and miscogyny.

  82. Bad science: fallacy of measurement by hessian · · Score: 1

    It's widely accepted that there are fewer genetic similiarities between individuals of the same 'race' as there are between individuals from different 'races.'

    It all depends on how you measure similarity. Difference however is easily seen since it's genetically reproducible.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/09/24/south-asians-as-a-hybrid-popul/

    There's a good basic primer on the topic.

  83. Not male-ness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Wealth.
    Then Race.
    Then gender.

    A white woman from a wealthy family will have more influential and lucerative jobs in the western world than a middle class male.

    A white lower class woman will do better than a black man.

  84. Might I suggest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That there are opportunities in so many academic fields, that minorities and women are pushed towards those...and the only way for intelligent white guys to go is towards technology.

  85. 22% Latinos + 14% Blacks = 36% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    36% of our schools are made up of latino and black kids.. Think about it guys this is New York, LA, Chicago, and the deep south. who gives a shit.

    1. Re:22% Latinos + 14% Blacks = 36% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to the guy that said "Mexican-Americans don't have a greater interest in being fruit pickers", no, they don't--but they aren't Mexican-Americans, they are illegal aliens from Mexico.

  86. Female Hacker Stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can make coding interesting to women if you ran a bunch of hacking stories by women in the news without overemphasizing the gender piece (meaning no Fox News anchors).

    Also, slashdot is mostly BS stories now thanks to new characters like samzenpus

  87. Re: Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Scho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yea dude, you've got balls. Because we all know who you are now, koan.

  88. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

    you realize one example is irrelevant right? If you are talking about societal pressures, the best way to compare is to compare across different societies. And it holds pretty damn well at that scale. I had a cousin we tried to treat like a guy but he only wanted to be treated like a little girl. He would cry, run around with the girls, want to put on make up, and his favorite colored material was frilly pink.

    This DOES NOT MEAN all guys act like this or that there aren't real defined roles/colors/activities for men and women. It happens to be your daughter at this stage doesn't care about gadgets. Que sera. The question being asked is why is this lack of women in the fields that correlate with these interests pretty unique to the US and a few other countries that also have gender biases that are in the same direction.

    You don't see a dearth of female programmers or hardware designers in countries where it isn't seen as a male/female divided profession. Why? that is the question that is generally being asked. Unfortunately, we generally try to correct a large scale issue with programs that don't really address the problem. If the problem is (I'm not sure this is the case, but let's assume it is) women are discouraged from an extremely young age from engaging in any technical fields, it's highly unlikely a couple of programs to get kids to program in high school will have any noticeable impact on the overall rate of women in programming (and let's be really specific, we are talking about native born women in programming, foreign women will still come over via H1-B visas or family connections).

  89. Re:Tech's Gender and Race Gap Starts In High Schoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His parents learned photoshop/gimp then doctored all the photos they had of him as a baby. Elementary.

  90. The OP, I think, is a result of Mainstream media's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With all due respect, consider that I am not trying to berate the O.P. It's more of constructive analysis to identify major corporate-governmental far overreach. It seems like misleading contradiction of many levels, ex: "In some of these states, there simply aren't many students of any race or gender taking the test, which helps explain the dearth of young women and minorities."
    Again, I am commenting to call attention to the massive big picture that's being hidden by a secretive society, further concealed by this manufactured 'dust-cloud' on so many levels of society solely to divide us so we fall.
    I understand it may not make sense as I'm in a hurry, but really, the problem is that so many things are so overglorified and overhyped in a way so over complicated purposely to dissuade the masses.
      It is really a well planned attack on the minds and health of Americans and basically every other country that is overridden of corruption.
    Big central banks such as the Federal Reserve: all of the policies, procedures, codified wording with no real meaning, many hidden factors, and all of the other mysterious complication that comes along with what is rapidly becoming globally known as the biggest, most clever heist ever known.
    More citizens must take part and speak up, peacefully, just get involved with our law makers and our public servants we pay to help us!
    Not help themselves to screw us over. Unity!

  91. Montana by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    I can tell you why Montana's on the list: there are simply no blacks or hispanics here. As for why women made the list, it's likely because they DGAF, as this is Montana and most of them wanna just work on a ranch, drive a diesel 4x4, and make babies.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  92. Precisely the Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that a comment about diversity being anti-white got modded up to 5 is exactly why there is little minority representation in IT.

    1. Re:Precisely the Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see a problem with that, largely because it's true if we're discussing what "diversity" means when used in practice by certain (very loud and obnoxious) groups.

  93. Why software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not argue that we need more male biology majors?

  94. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It actually starts in Middle School, it is just more prevalent in High School. Elementary School is equal all the way through as there is no choice, every student learns the same thing and is required to do the same amount of work on a computer. Middle School is when computers become an elective, you'll find girls in the ceramics and cooking classes and boys in the computer and woodworking classes (majority speaking). High School will actually see a slight increase of girls in computer electives but that is mainly due to them taking typing courses to prepare for careers as administrative assistants and business management fields.

  95. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  96. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  97. Read this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either that or I'll be pleasantly surprised to learn I'm wrong and have merely had bad experience after bad experience after bad experience after bad experience.

    It's not that you've had "bad experience after bad experience after bad experience after bad experience", it's that you've so warped your perception of the world you're unable to see through your self-concocted misogynistic persecution complex. Women aren't your enemy -- you are your own enemy. Whatever pain you have suffered as an innocent child you've allowed to control your life, to distort your views of women and people in general, and that's unbelievably sad. It's absolutely clear to everyone who reads your posts that you're suffering from some sort of delusion. That's not an exaggeration, you can't see it yourself because it's your own delusion, but it's plain as day for every . single . person who has read your posts.

    I hope for your own sake you can find someone you can trust enough to listen to when they suggest you seek professional help.