Slashdot Mirror


Will Peggy the Programmer Be the New Rosie the Riveter?

theodp writes "The Mercury News' Mike Cassidy reports that women are missing out on lucrative careers in computer science. 'The dearth of women in computing,' writes Cassidy, 'has the potential to slow the U.S. economy, which needs more students in the pipeline to feed its need for more programmers. It harms women by excluding them from some of the best jobs in the country. And it damages U.S. companies, which studies show would benefit from more diverse teams.' The promise of better financial results, says Anita Borg Institute Director Denise Gammal, is making diversity a business imperative. It's 'the sort of imperative that cries out for a movement,' argues Cassidy, 'maybe this time one led not by Rosie the Riveter, but by Peggy the Programmer.' So, where will Peggy the Programmer come from? Well, Google is offering $100 to girls attending U.S. public high schools who complete a Codecademy JavaScript course. 'Currently only 12% of computer science graduates are women,' explains Codecademy, 'and great tech companies like Google want to see more smart girls like you enter this awesome profession!' Google joins tech giant-backed Code.org in incentivizing teachers to bring the next generation of girls to the CS table.

But Silicon Valley claims the talent crisis is now (although there are 19 billion reasons to question SV's hiring acumen). So, what about the women who are here now, asks Dr. AnnMaria De Mars. 'If you are overlooking the women who are here now,' De Mars writes, 'what does that tell the girls you are supposedly bringing up to be the next generation of women in tech that you can overlook 15 years from now? Why do we hear about 16-year-old interns far more than women like me? If it is true, as the New York Times says, that in 2001-2 28% of computer science degrees went to women compared to the 10% or so now — where are those women from 12 years ago? It seems to me that when people are looking at minorities or women to develop in their fields, they are much more interested in the hypothetical idea of that cute 11-year-old girl being a computer scientist someday than of that thirty-something competing with them for market share or jobs. If there are venture capitalists or conference organizers or others out there that are sincerely trying to promote women who code, not girls, I've never met any. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it means that whoever they are seeking out, it isn't people like me.'"

52 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Dangit Peggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Peggy Hill as the spokeswoman. I could get behind that.

    1. Re:Dangit Peggy by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me see if I have this straight:

      A: 12 years ago, we expended the resources necessary to educate a *relatively* large number of women in computer programming
      B: The objective of that resource expenditure was to increase the net number of computer programmers in society
      C: We do not currently see a lot of these women from 12 years ago in the workforce as computer programmers

      It may or may not be in the best interest of womens development to spend resources educating them in computer programming. But, unless A or C are factually incorrect, the evidence seems to suggest that, if your primary goal is to compensate for a lack of computer programmers in society, educating women as computer programmers is a piss poor way to do it.

      We could try forcing them into the trade with the threat of punishment. We could try to create an even more unbalanced economy, increase the level of poverty among the masses and hope that the carrot becomes sufficiently appealing to motivate them to "freely" seek a career they wouldn't otherwise choose.

      Or we could just acknowledge that, even though they're not going to be the ones taking responsibility for these programming problems, we're not going to pressure them, because they have lots of intrinsic value just the way they are.

      The people behind this article seem to really be unsatisfied with women. Like a man who always wanted a son and tries to turn his daughter into one.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Dangit Peggy by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We DID see many women in the workforce as programmers! Those 30% CS grads who were women thirty years ago did get into the field. I see plenty of them. The problem is that these numbers are changing. If you look at more middle aged computer professionals you will see a larger percentage of females compared to entry level jobs.

      One issue is that new women coming into the field that I see tend to be the brilliant and determined ones, whereas there are plenty average Joes who squeak in for their boring 9-to-5 job. The average Janes are the ones who are becoming rarer over time.

    3. Re:Dangit Peggy by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2

      A better question is why are we freaking out about which fields and degrees women choose to pursue while men are 40% or less of college graduates in the first place.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Dangit Peggy by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 2

      "women are missing out on lucrative careers in computer science."

      Is it the computer science they're missing out on or is it the lucrative bit they're missing out on?

      Because I know a lot more men who program for enjoyment than women.

    5. Re:Dangit Peggy by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

      We we are, by nature, expendable. We should be used as beasts of burden and discarded once our usefulness is over.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
  2. Geez... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!

    If a group isn't interested, they aren't fucking interested. You don't HAVE to have two of every creature in every positon.

    Hell, the NBA is really lacking of white college educated women....are we freaking out and trying to induce them with $100 to work to get into the NBA (and god help them if the teams discrimate!!).

    Geez, please...get over it..people will do what people want to do.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    1. Re:Geez... by firex726 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, there was a Ruby workshop I was interested in attending; but seems it was only open to women.
      If they felt men as a gender would be disruptive then that should be handled on an individual basis regardless of gender, and even then I find it hard to believe that it'd be a widespread issue.

      As it stands, women probably have a far greater opportunity advantage from Diversity Quotas, Gendered Scholarships, and Classes. lsu many of the complaints can be attributed to the female dominated HR field; which has shown that women in HR will not hire other women they consider to be prettier then themselves.

    2. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://railsgirls.com/

    3. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There you go http://www.railsbridge.org/

      It is very popular, but you wouldn't know it because you probably don't have a vagina. Sarah Mei teaches them specifically to women. It is no boys allowed.

      http://techfemme.wordpress.com among others, including people on slashdot have brought this up. Either you are not paying attention, or you are part of the problem.

      Now kindly go fuck yourself.

    4. Re:Geez... by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But that does show up as a problem, and no, it's not just a lack of Amish representation.
      Which is why efforts are made to remedy that.

      What problem? The one that the article falsely claims? TFA starts with a false premise, and then repeats a fabricated statistic as propaganda. Here is a link to a set of data that disagrees with the idea that women make less money than men. I'm not claiming that there are no differences, but the differences are minor. It's not .77c on the dollar as people try and claim for propaganda, reality says it's much much closer. Sure, we can always improve but if the 'problem' is distorted then the solution will also be distorted.

      You are arguing that a person should not have a choice because your liberal viewpoint is that everything should be equal all the time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Utopia does not exist and people won't do something simply because -you- and people of a similar belief want them to. Many times, the forcing of behavior has the opposite effect in fact (basic psychology, read a book). Further, society can't function if everyone is in a technical field. We need doctors, plumbers, welders, farmers, and many people want to perform those roles in society and not be pigeon holed into what -you- want them to do.

      Ask the basic required questions, and these would be true for any claim of bias or discrimination (gender, race, religion):

      1. Do the people have the same opportunities to education? I'm pretty sure we can state that the system is pretty fair, not perfect, but fair. If they have the same opportunities for education then they could get into the same line of work if they so choose unless there are barriers to entry in the field. This is why we have so many women doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, etc..

      2. Do they have opportunity for employment? I work with a lot of women programmers, most of them are originally from China and Russia, so you would have to show me proof that there are entry barriers to employment for women. If you have knowledge and skill, you get jobs even if your English is not so good and you may have difficulty in communicating.

      3. Does society discourage them from working in these fields? Again, you need to show me proof that this is happening. I have not seen any advertising or articles talking about how poor a specific gender, race, or religion is in any field since I was a kid. Anything that would even hint at a bias today would end up in court extremely quickly. I'm sure you could dig up a company that was found guilty of discrimination in recent times, but that company would be an anomaly and not a 'normal' company with what society considered acceptable practice.

      If those questions are answered "yes", "yes", and "no", then it's possible that people are just choosing not to do certain jobs. Why not let them make up their minds about their careers instead of trying to force them to be what you want them to be? What I find very ironic is that most people will tell you today that if you want to make an excellent living, you go into welding or plumbing because there are real shortages there. But that's not what -you- want them to do.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    5. Re:Geez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at the gender distribution in most of them. 90% male? 95% male? 99?

      But that's not a forced distribution, that's because 90-99% of the people who are interested are men. That's a completely different story than a conference which flat out locks out attendees based on their gender.

      If you find the gender imbalance (and some of the nastier aspects of that) in IT not to be

      Ruby is not "IT" it's CS. Calling a programmer "IT" is like calling an Architect a "Construction Worker".

      > As it stands, women probably have a far greater opportunity advantage from Diversity Quotas, Gendered Scholarships, and Classes
      That's an opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it.

      No, he's 100% correct. There are scholarships which are offered ONLY to women, but you do not find any offered only to men. There are also no Quota requirements to employ at least x% Men in any field, but there are in some places requirements to employ at least x% women.

      But given that we don't have hordes of female junior programmers - it's probably wrong.

      Which is assuming that the ONLY thing keeping women out of CS majors and jobs is a lack of Diversity Quotas and Scholarships. And given that college enrollment for women is on par with men, drawing that conclusion is entirely incorrect.

      > which has shown that women in HR will not hire other women they consider to be prettier then themselves.
      Citation, please - or did you just make that up on the spot?

      Women are threatened by other women who are perceived to be better looking than they are. If you need a Citation there are entire sections in your local book store written about this very subject, both in the Business and Economics categories as well as "Gender Studies" and the like.

      Logically that would imply the HR department is populated by the ugliest people you can find that are still qualified to do the job

      You obviously need to work on your reading comprehension. The people in HR are hiring for all the positions in the company, not just in HR. But the counter-point is that while women DO feel threatened by what THEY perceive to be better-looking women, they are also extremely Catty and tend to avoid hiring "ugly" women nearly as much. The primary problem you have with seeing this is that what women perceive as "good looking" is not always the same as what MEN perceive. Women place far more importance on how other women dress than men do, just as one example, and with women who you know is far more important. So a butt-ugly but well-dressed woman who knows a lot of people is far more "hireable" than a really good-looking woman who knows few other women and dresses in a similar fashion.

    6. Re:Geez... by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I start seeing movements to increase the dearth of men in the fulfilling career of nursing, I might start having some actual respect for efforts such as these.

      It's been happening for a while, you just aren't paying attention. For example: http://aamn.org/aamn.shtml

      Some people get stuck in a single solution mentality. There may well be less inherent motivation to join programming in women. But every time the point is even close to being raised, Slashdot seems to have a collective hissy fit and shuts down and refuses to talk about it. Which itself is a sign that there's probably a problem, because we can't even talk rationally about whether there's a problem.

      And frankly, if you don't see discrimination against women in IT, you are really not paying attention. I say this as a man in software development. When we ask if there's a systemic bias, it doesn't mean "are you, briancox2, personally a sexist radical who advocates giving women 1/4 pay and rescinding the vote from them". I think a lot of people take it as a personal insult.

      Absolutely be welcoming and warm in our acceptance of anyone. Totally agreed. And when we see inequality, think critically about the possible causes. Are women not interested? Are women too stupid (most agree that no, that's not it, but strictly it's a possibility)? Are women pushed out of the field intentionally? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by social factors? Are women pushed out of the field unintentionally by physical factors (as a ridiculous example, if upper body strength were correlated to typing speed)? Is it because women have better alternative options that men don't have? Is it because men have safety nets that women don't have, and thus men can choose a higher-stress occupation? Is it a combination of factors?

      Is it possible that some of these factors are actually pushing women into the field, but other factors are stronger? For instance, hypothetically it's possible that women are actually much better suited than men at programming but they won't do it because they have a fulfilling career in nursing that men can't break into. I don't think anybody actually believes that one; I chose it specifically so that we wouldn't get off-point by debating specifics. I don't really know the answer and nobody on Slashdot is really talking about it. They've landed mostly on "it's 100% from natural preferences" with a few on the "umm, obvious pervasive sexism???" and just a couple "actually everyone is discriminating against white straight middle class men".

    7. Re:Geez... by Sperbels · · Score: 2

      When I was a kid, I coded for fun. I met a lot of guys in highschool who did this too. In college, I met even more. How many women have I meet who coded for fun since they were kids? Zero. That's telling. I think a lot of people here will say the same thing. You say there are barriers...what barriers are there preventing girls from downloading a compiler and googling some "learn to code" websites?

    8. Re:Geez... by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      I fully agree with this, but there's a problem: we have this whole bunch of questions and no way of answering. You and I and everyone else can conjecture for all we want, but at the end of the day that's all it is: conjecture. There needs to be actual research done on a much wider level to attempt to answer these questions. As it is now, I'm largely seeing a lot of people flailing at what they think is the problem with what they think is the solution, and I can't say that it's worked. At the very least, we still have only 10-20% women at university in comp sci despite a lot of women-only grants and loads of advertising aimed at getting girls into computer science. This is compared to 40-50% in chemistry, >50% in medicine and biology, around 30-35% in physics, etc.

      I'd love to see more girls in tech, but until we have actual data to attempt to understand what's going on to me the obvious answer is that they're just not attracted to it. Since there are quite a few "hard" sciences where women have taken over men in attendance and graduation, I'd say the remaining fields are either hostile to them or less attractive, and hostility is something I can most assuredly say is not a problem where I'm at (it may be an issue elsewhere, but all of my experience thus far tells me it's not much of an issue anymore, if at all).

      Therefore, the questions that we just can't answer right now are: is this difference intrinsic to women, or something to do with upbringing and society? If the latter, how can we change it and should we change it? If the former, what do we do?

    9. Re:Geez... by Pope · · Score: 2

      Yea, there was a Ruby workshop I was interested in attending; but seems it was only open to women

      So go to a different one. Stop treating this as some ridiculous zero-sum game.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  3. How about Norm the nurse? by the_humeister · · Score: 2

    Or Frank the pharmacist? These two professions are dominated by women. Perhaps we should make boys more interested in those professions as well somehow.

  4. Um, what? by s.petry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The Mercury News' Mike Cassidy reports that women are missing out on lucrative careers in computer science. 'The dearth of women in computing,' writes Cassidy, 'has the potential to slow the U.S. economy,

    No they are not, there is no such thing, and I smell bullshit.

    If you make up fairy tales, you can put any ending you want on them. That is what is happening here. Women are not missing out, they are choosing to not do certain things. Let's look at a very good reason for this to be the case.

    Programmers tend to work horrible and long hours. Most women are choosing to manage life and work together, and not work 60+ hours a week. That is a choice, and I have no issues with them doing so. I used to work 60+ hours a week, and decided I was missing out on too much living to continue. I'm glad more women refuse to work 60 hour weeks, more men should do the same. Your average company does not reward you for the extra work, they simply take advantage of you for doing it.

    This is similar to the myth that women on average make less money than men doing the same work. Sure, there is some of the good'ole boy network that does this intentionally, just like certain places won't hire minorities. Those places are extremely rare, and not "normal". If a man works 50 hours a week and a woman works 40, the man does and should make more money. Women on average choose not to do this for various reasons.

    Reality is a real drag when you start to look at it, but it's reality. I don't buy this line of shit because that's what it is. It's a piece of trash intended to increase hostilities toward each other and ignore the bigger issues like corruption.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Um, what? by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      Acknowledging that this is totally a 'devil's advocate' type statement, but I suspect you would find there are plenty of women, particularly single mothers from lower income households, that work more than one lower paid job that total in excess of 40 hours (and some in excess of 60 hours) just to make ends meet.

      Many of these women come from backgrounds that don't value education and are not equipped for higher paid roles that would enable them to work more manageable hours at a single job rather than terrible hours at more than one job.

      This is not to say there aren't guys who work terrible hours, some in more than one job. But choosing to ONLY work 40 hours is sometimes a luxury afforded to people to can afford to do so, either because the job they have is sufficiently well paid or they have someone else supporting them.

      Women also frequently are expected to be the primary partner responsible for child care, to be at home and available when the kids aren't at school, 'allowing' the male partner to put in the extra hours for the greater responsibility and career opportunities that equate to higher incomes.

      Much of the push these sort of initiatives promote is not about mandatory quotas when hiring but about providing equal opportunities. Currently the opportunities are not equal, women are still actively discouraged from pursuing STEM jobs and encouraged to work in lower paid, lower status, nurturing based roles. If you want to see men becoming teachers or nurses or aged care - make changes so that the roles are perceived to be as valuable to the community and the bank account as programming or sales or working on an oil rig.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  5. Get Over it FFS by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Funny

    MOST women don't like to code, stop fucking trying to turn them into programming machines. Some do, good for them, let them be great programmers, but for fucks sake stop trying to force women to do shit most of them have no interest in doing. Its not going to get you a girlfriend, you'll still be an asshole.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Get Over it FFS by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MOST women don't like to code, stop fucking trying to turn them into programming machines. Some do, good for them, let them be great programmers, but for fucks sake stop trying to force women to do shit most of them have no interest in doing. Its not going to get you a girlfriend, you'll still be an asshole.

      I think the problem isn't attracting women to the field, it's that the field is so full of men who are at best crude with their social skills. To be honest, seeing interactions between developers is quite eye-opening at times. You'd think by their language that they were stereotypical construction workers full to sexist jokes and innuendo, catcalling, and the like.

      It's going beyond programmers having poor social skills, it's poor social skills AND being some of the most sexist people on the planet. Heck, in any other workplace, a lot of their behavior would count as sexual harassment.

      And perhaps that's the reason why women aren't entering the field - they're entering workplaces that haven't really evolved beyond suffrage, while the rest of the world evolved and modernized. Like programming is the last refuge for manliness.

    2. Re:Get Over it FFS by Nemyst · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's funny because what you're describing, to me, sounds like another planet. I'm at university in computer science. What I see is a bunch of guys (and a few girls) doing maths and programming, learning computer science, and geeking out along the way. We'll play card games, computer games, make jokes about whatever you can imagine (but largely about computers and science, obviously) and just have a good time. I don't see anything socially inept or sexist about it. I see people.

      I can tell you that there's a good subset of people who are shy, much more so than average, and who look awkward in social situations. They're not sexist either.

      So really, I think there's often some massively wide brushes being used here. You're basically taking your bad experiences and branding the entire field with the same stroke. That's a gross generalization. By saying this, you're basically doing the same thing that the sexist machos (who do exist, I'm sure, what I'm not sure is whether they're representative) do when they put all women in the same basket.

      I'd also often be curious to actually read those sexist jokes and innuendos. Perhaps I'm just not noticing them and they permeate the culture as you say, but thus far I've only seen them referenced, but never really documented and dissected.

    3. Re:Get Over it FFS by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      MANY women do like to code. Thirty years ago about 30% of computer science graduates were women; today it's about 10%. So if your theory is right then what changed? I refuse to believe that stupid line that women just don't like computing because they're wired up differently because the evidence says otherwise.

  6. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Was wondering when this topic would finally get some coverage again. It's been at least a week since this important injustice graced the front page.

    Well done slashdot, your click bait got me again.

  7. Todd the Teacher.. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You missed the big one.

    Todd the Teacher.

    Men have been practically excluded from teaching, by being painted with the sexist assumptions
    that they are all child molesters and pedophiles with nothing positive to contribute.

    In comparison to this particular problem, an imbalance in programmers is nothing.. bias in the
    teaching of our children should be a huge priority, and yet, its not....

    1. Re:Todd the Teacher.. by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a huge problem for elementary (Grade 1 to 7 ) schools. Any male teacher who wants to work in elementary schools and isn't a specialist (Librarian or Music Teacher) is viewed with great suspicion.He must be some kind of pedophile. The school I went to as a child had 5 male teachers out of 25 total. Now 25 years later my kids are there, and there are no male teachers at all and 35 women.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    2. Re:Todd the Teacher.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Posting AC because of previous moderation.

      Well, maybe you can start by combating the sexist assumptions that women are naturally more nurturing (a story uniquely suited to keeping those pesky women in the home). You can follow up by setting teacher pay to a reasonable level, so that they're competitively compensated for the amount of schooling and long hours that they need to put in.

      Oh, Bullshit.

      This smacks so much of the "Young girls are being fed bad body imagey by Barbie." Adherents

      At some point, somewhere, somehow, These fragile little snowflakes, just waiting to be devastated, and ruined by the evil menfolk, has to stop

      I worked in a University environment that practiced a complete reversal of the evil menfolk, and the glass ceiling. If there were two people applying for a position, and one was female, the other male - the females automatically got the job. Heck, I had one promoted over me after being on the job for 1 year, when the minimum requirements said 2 years.

      All a woman had to do was not quit, and she'd rise really quickly.

      Lest you think this is bitterness, I participated in heavily the drive to get women into engineering and technical positions. I ended up with the belief that it takes more thna just men changing their "evil ways".

      But we worked really hard to get the women involved. A number quit to raise families, others because it took up "too much time". And the vast majority of young women at Take our sons and daughters to work day simply were interested in other fields.

      The problem is the almost universal assumption that men are at fault, and the woman never is. Instead of what men have to change to include women in Tech and engineering, at some point we need to address what women have to change.

  8. It's a matter of biology by wilson_c · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just don't have the upper body strength that the job requires.

  9. I think not. by sesshomaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. No she won't.

    Padma the Programmer, however, is a name with potential.

    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    1. Re:I think not. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2
      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  10. Let's just put nine women on the job! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    . . . and then the baby programming project will be done in a month!

    We need more good programmers, not just more programmers. And their sex is totally irrelevant. A good programmer is a good programmer, regardless of sex,race, religion, shoe size, hair color, etc . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Again the 'women must be stupid to miss out' by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is soooo freakin tired. And not just on /. Women are not stupid. Or no more so than men. If they want a career/job in comp. sci they certainly can figure out what to do. Can we stop wetting our pants that 51% of the work force in industry X is not women?

    1. Re:Again the 'women must be stupid to miss out' by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Did you even read TFS? It says that a decade ago 28% of computer science degrees went to women, and now it's 10%. It's not about 51%, it's about the fact that we know more women are interested in computer science than are taking degrees in it for some reason. If we remove the things that are putting them more more will take those degrees.

      Google et al really want more women in IT because they need more skilled coders, and understand that there are women who do want to be programmers but are put off. If they can make things easier for them by either removing the things putting them off or offsetting them with extra support they can get those workers they need.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Again the 'women must be stupid to miss out' by unimacs · · Score: 2

      I agree that there are enough women in the armed forces today that it's not as much of a barrier as it used to be, but don't you think it was much more difficult when there were fewer of them?

      Assuming you're a male, wouldn't you perhaps think twice about a career choice where you might be the only male out of 10 people in your group and you were one of only a few men in any class you took or conference you attended?

  12. Programming is over-hyped as a career by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Programmer burn-out and turn-over to other IT careers is high. Age discrimination and RSI injuries are common, and you are competing with 3rd-world wage-slaves and typically work long hours. For those who want to be involved with family life, long hours is not a selling point.

    Programming is a stepping-stone job into project, network, equipment logistics, and server management, but not the only path. It's only real appeal is quick money out of college. After that you statistically will flat-line compared to other options.

    Enough STEM career bullshit already.

    1. Re:Programming is over-hyped as a career by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      Programming is a stepping-stone job into project, network, equipment logistics, and server management

      Lolwut? You have it exactly backwards, unless you think "programming" is shitty web page writing.

  13. Stop these articles already! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've seen an absurd number of stories on this topic, probably ever since the Hour of Code crap started. /. would you please give this topic a @#$% rest???

  14. Sigh.. by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough of this narrative already. Women are given every opportunity and are practically begged by universities (via discriminating scholarships under the guise of 'diversity' programs) to major in comp-sci and other engineering/science majors. They've been doing this for decades, now, and they're still looking at it as though it's 1970. The problem is they're measuring success by the standard of equal outcome on the false premise that men and women are physically and psychologically the same. They're not, so they won't always make the same life choices given similar backgrounds and opportunities. Despite what the PC crowd will say, there's nothing wrong with this at all. This is the very essence of diversity. In a diverse systems, equal outcome is not a given.

    How about we focus on equal opportunity based upon relevant attributes (ie demonstrated interest and aptitude), rather than building systemic bias into society under the guise of eliminating it? After that, let individuals make their own life choices. The only thing this bias does is teach women how to play better victims, which denies them opportunities to earn real respect among their peers. Getting society to discriminate against men will not empower them, either. It just creates more irrelevant discrimination and bilateral bigotry.

  15. if you can't H-1B it... by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    just hire more women and pay them 75 cents on the dollar.


    It'd be worth every quarter just to drive out some of the brogrammers

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  16. Tech companies just want to further glut the field by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

    The field is already glutted. US workers are being replaced by offshore workers in droves. Wages are not going up.

    But IT workers are never cheap enough for the tech companies, so they churn out this propaganda routinely.

  17. Re:Productivity gap by EMG+at+MU · · Score: 2

    You obviously ignored the sarcasm tags.

    But to play ball: in the US as in many other developed nations you can't discriminate against employees because of things like that. If I have diabetes you can't discriminate against me because I may have low blood sugar one day and have to go home. You can't discriminate someone with a propensity to get the flu every winter because on average that person misses more days than someone who doesn't get the flu. Furthermore you can't just lump all women together and generalize about them. Some choose not to have children, should they be punished because some women do choose to have children?

    Were you really trying to say that there is such a disparity between the number of men and women in software engineering because they may take more time off? Or were you just waiting for your chance to get in a cheap shot against women?

    You may not be a misogynist, but you do have some silly thoughts regarding women.

  18. There's no shortage. by tsotha · · Score: 2

    I'd just as soon "Peggy" found something else to do. The entire "shortage" is a mythical construct of tech companies engaged in their biannual attempt to raise the H1-B cap.

    If you need to be convinced to take up programming you probably won't be very good at it anyway.

  19. because it's a hostile environment by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make what sex, race or religion you are to be in IT??!?!

    It makes a difference when the path to the field, and the field itself, is hostile to non-straight, white, men. Reading through the comments here there's a lot of really angry, hostile, dismissive posts. Which certainly doesn't help counter the argument by TFA.

    Hell, the NBA is really lacking of white college educated women....are we freaking out and trying to induce them with $100 to work to get into the NBA (and god help them if the teams discrimate!!).

    Aside from the fact that a sports league has nothing to do with IT, when's the last time you watched a WNBA game? Can you name a SINGLE WNBA player playing this season? How about a single hall-of-famer? Can you name your area's WNBA team? When was the last time you even accidentally came up on an WNBA game on TV? (hint: rarely, because they're not televised nearly as often.) Or how about this: why doesn't the NBA sanction both men's and women's leagues, ie, why did the WNBA need to be formed in the first place? Answer: because the NBA refused to allow women's teams.

    So, women don't get the same TV coverage, sponsorship, press, etc.

    The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem. And it's a problem in scholastic/collegiate areas as well, which is the whole point behind Title 9 - all the money for scholastic and collegiate athletics was going to men's sports.

    1. Re:because it's a hostile environment by pla · · Score: 2

      It makes a difference when the path to the field, and the field itself, is hostile to non-straight, white, men.

      The funny part about that, you won't find a much more pure meritocracy than IT in the entire history of Humanity.

      If group-X has a problem with the attitudes in IT, that says more about group-X than it does about IT. We may not, as a whole, tend to kowtow to BS politically correct social norms; but we'll accept a black Muslim woman programmer just as readily as any run-of-the-mill pasty white middle class basement dweller.

      That said, yes, other departments put up with us more for what we bring to the table than for our manners. But again... That still says more about them than about us. We earn our keep. And theirs. Suck it up or go back to paper ledgers, physical pricebooks, board games, and typewriters.


      The gender bias in professional sports *is* a huge problem.

      And with that one line, you destroyed your own credibility. Women have every opportunity to compete in pro sports. Just find one who can beat LeBron or Kobe - Or hell, even a John Lucas or Jason Thompson.

      Some professions don't appeal to women, some they don't do well at. But if you really want to rant, perhaps you should encourage more men to become K-6 teachers or nurses or therapists, to even out the gender gap there. Sorry? I can't hear you over the crickets. Can you speak up?

  20. I hope so. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

    I for one fervently hope so.

    Oh, not because this is a real or important issue. I find "diversity" studies in technical fields laughable. You can have more diversity in relevant thought between two white males who graduated from different schools than between a white male and a black female CS graduate. Race and sex are not equal to diversity.

    No, I hope this works because I'm fucking tired of hearing about it. So very, very tired.

  21. Umm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does that question even make sense without some sort of suitable historical context?

    Is there some massive draft underway, with hundreds of thousands of code monkeys being churned into cannon fodder, that I missed out on?

    Even casually equating a total-war domestic propaganda/production mobilization exercise with the half-assed plan of the day by silicon valley to get slightly cheaper programmers just seems... tone deaf. At best.

  22. Re:this again ? really by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The female hostile tech work environment is largely a myth nowadays. I've heard atrocious war stories from older female engineers who were treated like secretaries at former employers... and then they proclaim how much better they are treated at their current job. I've also heard numerous women with no actual experience paint an unappealing picture of what they perceive to be the work environment in (non-bio) science and engineering.

    The reality is that the majority of women just aren't as interested in doing that type of work, either due to social conditioning (Barbie: "Math is hard") or innate lack of interest. There have been decades of effort to promote women in STEM positions with no real results other than the biology related sciences. Is that the fault of men or it is just because women aren't interested no matter how much boostering is directed their way? Is it really that important to put so much effort to create an artificially level paying field? Nobody is complaining about the paucity of male elementary school teachers. Why aren't there alarmists crying over that?

    In my experience, the technical women are treated fairly and the negative image is just an outdated stereotype perpetuated by women themselves. I'm sure there is still a level of unfair bias and inappropriate behavior but from my observation the modern male tech worker is the most welcoming to women compared to other fields. I can't enumerate all the times I've heard inappropriate comments come from female coworkers that any male compatriot would not dare say for fear of going to a reeducation camp.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  23. What War by Dripdry · · Score: 2

    Exactly which war is Peggy the Programmer going to help us win? The war against 35-year-old virgins?

    Maybe I'm too dim, but I'm just not seeing a meaningful connection here.

    --
    -
  24. Re:Rosie the riveter by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

    Incredibly, though, this one is still working as a riveter as of about 5 months ago.

  25. Are Techies Bigger Jerks than Lawyers??? by onkelonkel · · Score: 2

    A common assumption I read here is that the male dominated culture is keeping women out of engineering and programming.

    Let us indulge in a little thought experiment about two male dominated fields.

    50 years ago Law schools and Engineering schools had less than 5% women. Today, Law schools are 50+% women and Engineering schools are maybe 10% women. We can therefore conclude a) Techie men are much bigger jerks than lawyers, or b) something else is causing this.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  26. Re:this again ? really by Nemyst · · Score: 2

    "Brogrammers" aren't hostile to women, they're hostile to intelligence. Anyone with more than a few brain cells left, man or woman, would flee the fucking place as fast as possible.

  27. Re:this again ? really by xelah · · Score: 2

    That's not necessarily true. There are many high-income professions which are male dominated.

    I think that there's a great deal of interrelationship between the way men and women treat each other, and the way people treat each other at work and outside it. And one of aspect of that that I think is not looked at often enough is the way people make their sexual choices. Women can feel under pressure to be thin and beautiful with large chests because of men's preferences, but men come under pressure, too - under pressure to have high status jobs earning a lot of money (or, at least, to be higher status and higher earning than their prospective partner - one ex-partner told me that she wouldn't have considered me if I had earnt less than her). Inevitably, this will push more men than women in to making the sacrifices to their personal well-being to gain those things. In doing so, they make the labour market and working environment more competitive, political and hostile, and so less attractive to everyone. But that disproportionately puts off women, who don't need to deal with that to find the 'best' partners.