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.'"
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.'"
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.........
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
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.
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....
They just don't have the upper body strength that the job requires.
No. No she won't.
Padma the Programmer, however, is a name with potential.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
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?
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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???
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.
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.
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.
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
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.