Slashdot Mirror


Solving the Mystery of Declining Female CS Enrollment

theodp writes After an NPR podcast fingered the marketing of computers to boys as the culprit behind the declining percentages of women in undergraduate CS curricula since 1984 (a theory seconded by Smithsonian mag), some are concluding that NPR got the wrong guy. Calling 'When Women Stopped Coding' quite engaging, but long on Political Correctness and short on real evidence, UC Davis CS Prof Norm Matloff concedes a sexist element, but largely ascribes the gender lopsidedness to economics. "That women are more practical than men, and that the well-publicized drastic swings in the CS labor market are offputting to women more than men," writes Matloff, and "was confirmed by a 2008 survey in the Communications of the ACM" (related charts of U.S. unemployment rates and Federal R&D spending in the '80s). Looking at the raw numbers of female CS grads instead of percentages, suggests there wasn't a sudden and unexpected disappearance of a generation of women coders, but rather a dilution in their percentages as women's growth in undergrad CS ranks was far outpaced by men, including a boom around the time of the dot-com boom/bust.

43 of 608 comments (clear)

  1. Boys are naturally curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... more about systems than people and women are more interested in people than systems.

    1. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by unixisc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up (just exhausted all my mod points). I know a lot of people won't like this, but it's true. Not that there's anything wrong w/ either, but it's just that it then translates into ground facts, such as women are more interested in nursing than men are, while men are more interested in cars, planes, computers and all other things (not people) that one can think of.

    2. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Jawnn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must find putting everyone in your boxes pretty easy.

      You must find confusing valid observation of a trend with something else pretty easy.

    3. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by donscarletti · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you are looking for why a segment of the population is or isn't doing something, working out generalised patterns between members of the group should be the first thing you should do.

      There is an exception to every pattern, but means little when answering questions of percentages. If you are the exception, then maintain that it doesn't apply to you and move on.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    4. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, unfortunately, these boxes happen to describe reality. We had 8/250 women in CS after the first 2 years and as it turns out, they had all pretty non-standard reasons to be in the field. One had a male twin (typically causing more testosterone-influenced behavior), one had a father that was an engineer and wanted a son but taught his daughter instead, and so on. Really, the reason there are significantly less women in CS is that significantly less women want to be in CS and the reasons seem to be all the traditional ones.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not whether or not it what the GP said may be true for the group as a whole. The problem is that these stereotypes are applied to everyone in the group regardless of whether they fit it or not. Thus, countless women who do not fit this gender stereotype are intentionally being pushed out of a field they could excel in because "only boys do that". People should be encouraged to explore things regardless of whether that field fits into these mostly dated gender stereotypes.

    6. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem here is not the skewed gender-relationship, the problem is that observable facts collide with feminist theory and hence some evil plot must be the reason. Guess what, it is not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by PacoSuarez · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you don't agree with the parent, you need to watch this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by buddyglass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was this less true prior to ~ 1980-81? Because the % of women CS grads peaked in 1984-1985 at 37% before dropping to its current level of 18%. The % of female grads in other fields (that had around the same % as C.S. in the early 1980s) continued to rise.

      Any reason given for the low rate of women in C.S. must explain why the trend shifted around the mid 1980s.

    9. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is when it works to discourage women who do not fit the stereotypes, and there are many who do not, from entering fields they could excel in

      It's OK to be weird.

      Every fucking geek my age is weird. All of us were "discouraged", women and men alike, and as a result are quite welcoming to any who make it through.

      I sure hope we're past the days where being into formal logic/math/whatever automatically made you the target for bullying (or at least that it's a bit better now), but life includes obstacles! If children are afraid to do what they like, when it leads to a well-paying career (the top career outside politics in many nations), maybe the problem isn't that their slightly discouraged by the culture. Maybe the problem is we're not raising kids with the strength of character to overcome adversity.

      Life will have "discouragements" and setbacks of various sorts. That's just how life works. Don't let it stop you!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you are looking for why a segment of the population is or isn't doing something, working out generalised patterns between members of the group should be the first thing you should do.

      The problem comes when people confuse cause and effect.

      The implicit assumption here is that women are less "curious" about systems than men because they are biologically predetermined to be that way, rather than they have been socially conditioned to be that way. So far there is very little evidence for the former, but good evidence for the later.

    11. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Stardner · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have a male twin and was taught by my father, who was an engineer. From my experience, I have come to the same conclusion.

      People are heavily influenced by gender. For many women, sticking too closely to gender norms during developmental years will shape her into the kind of person that is unlikely to develop an interest in CS. It's the same reason you see more women (or gay men) than straight men becoming stylists.

    12. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What year was C++ released ?

      See the trend between objectifying programming and women running away ?

      C++ and JAVA are to blame.
      Women naturally think like cobol and fortran compilers.

    13. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Mr_Wisenheimer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Ignore the peer revied data that is easily available and quite clearly shows a number of artificial cultural barriers to women in Computer Science because you have not "seen" it (Argument from Personal Incredulity Logical Fallacy).

      2. Proceed to base your conclusions on your own anecdotes rather than the copious amounts of scientific research that have actually been done on this subject (hasty generalization logical fallacy)

    14. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Durrik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Very interesting, thanks for sharing. There were a few problems I had with the video.

      It did make the guys who professed that biology had nothing to do with it look a bit like closed minded idiots, but that was mostly their own fault. With the two that were shown the studies contrasting their views starting to call the studies weak, and almost name calling.

      The video alluded to many studies that proved that biology had something to do with it, but only really went into details with two of them, and those looked to be one off studies. If they had been repeated by other scientists then I would give them more weight.

      The video was a bit bias in its selection on who to present. The 'biology has nothing to do with it' looked to be young and barely out of post grad and wanting to make a name for themselves. They also seemed defensive and emotionally invested in their views. The ones on the other side of the debate were older, and looking to be more established. This gave the 'there's a biological link' a more credible appearance.

      Personally I'm with the guy who said that you can't ignore biology and you can't ignore culture. That's also known as the grey fallacy, but when you're trying to find the root cause of something like this you can't cut out one side of the argument, even if its bee proven wrong. You have to continue to prove it wrong with hard facts and understanding, and each time you do you promote more understanding of what the issue is.

      The video was also nice in that it pointed out, it was only the scientists form the culture is everything camp that discounted the biological portion of it. The scientists from the biology is important camp didn't say that culture wasn't important.

      --
      Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
    15. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by silfen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Instantly saying it's "natural" is a lazy way out. How much is nature and how much is nurture?

      What difference does it make whether women choose career X because of the bed time stories their mothers told them or because their brains are genetically different? What gives you or anybody else the right to mess with their nurture and education just so they meet your arbitrary criteria of equality?

    16. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And THAT is the problem with the people hijacking feminism for their misguided man-hatred.

      Identifying trends is GOOD! It enables us to tailor processes, in this case education, to those who want them, rather than pushing people into them that actually don't want to.

      A trend does not exclude the minorities that go against it. That is another step that needs to be taken that can be addressed on a per situation basis.

      YOU, on the other hand, are an oppressor. You oppress fact (and we don't take too kindly to that around here) and you try to press women and men into a, granted new, mold. "Women must do everything men do" is just as bad as "Women can't do what men do."

      So kindly go fuck yourself.

    17. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean feminist peer reviewed data gotten from skewered studies? The only institutions involved here are already heavily influenced by feminists. I hardly call that science. Would you buy anything taken from a book called "The Faith and Science Reader"? Probably not. There actually is a book called "The Gender and Science Reader" which provides a "comprehensive feminist analysis of the nature and practice of science." They cherry pick facts that fit their ideological precepts and then mix it in with their bullshit. There's a phrase for this: science fiction.

    18. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Studies showing that, "women are motivated by different things to men [sic]," is not logically equivalent to your claim that, " physiological differences naturally make women less inclined in going into a STEM field." You are moving the goalposts.

      Are you seriously too lazy to even see who made the original claim? I made no such claim.

      Without even going to the peer reviewed analysis, let us look at the raw data.

      That's not what you claimed - you claimed the existence of peer reviewed studies backing up your point, I asked for a citation. Instead of posting a single line citation you post a multi-paragraph explanation of why a citation isn't needed. You do more damage to your own argument than I could ever do.

      Just FYI, before you make any more stupid claims to scientists about what we think, here is what peer-reviewed studies look like (and these are all in support of my argument that males and females have different motivations):

      Significant difference in motivation between sexes,

      Motivation difference in sex responsible for differing levels of performance,

      Motivation primarily responsible for differences in performance in the sciences,

      In fact, amongst scientists this is already well-known, you can find literally hundreds of peer-reviewed properly done and replicated studies that show that:
      a) Women and men are mostly equally capable at all cognitive tasks, and
      b) Women and men are almost always motivated by different things, and
      c) Motivation is the primary indicator of performance in scientific fields.

      Here, check for yourself

      The problem, in my not so fucking humble scientist opinion, is that people like you don't have a clue about all the research that exists because:
      a) You aren't scientists, you don't want to be scientists and it's too much work to think like one,
      b) You have a different agenda to push, and common scientific knowledge like I posted above goes against what you feel should be correct, so you ignore it when you find it, just like you will ignore the above research (and the hundreds of papers that deal with this).

      number of good papers and studies, so you can use the bibliography as a starting point.

      Eric S. Roberts, Marina Kassianidou, and Lilly Irani. 2002. Encouraging women in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 84-88.

      That paper, which I've already read BTW, doesn't add to your argument in any way. In fact, quote the section that you *think* adds to your argument from that paper. There is not mention of artificial barriers, only strategies of increasing female representation - in fact, that's what the entire paper is about: how to increase female representation. Unluckily for

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    19. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crap. People who say this don't have kids. No matter what you try and railroad your kids into they'll eventually find their own path.

    20. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by tburkhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What difference does it make whether women choose career X because of the bed time stories their mothers told them or because their brains are genetically different?

      Because, in this case, it seems like social pressures may be pushing a group out of lucrative, high-benefit career paths. We, as a society, may consequently be excluding a large number of highly talented people from those jobs and making [CS or other male-dominated field] less productive. Remember how blacks were excluded from professional football because they lacked strategic thinking skills? Does anyone think football was better back in the segregation days?

      More importantly, "the establishment" has a long history of justifying their position with generally unsupported claims that [group] is just not naturally suited or inclined to [leadership position]. The aristocracy knew that their magical blood entitled them to rule. The Europeans knew that Africans were unsuited to proper education. Men know that women are unsuited to rigorous logic. Historically, these claims have frequently been found untrue, and it's appropriate to be skeptical with the party in power claims that an identifiably different group "just doesn't want" some path to success or power.

      Now, certainly there are differences between the sexes. I don't think anyone is questioning that. What I think we need to do is figure out to what extent extraordinarily subtle social pressures (the very forces that men claim to be insensitive to) might be skewing the data. Maybe girls play with dolls and boys play with trains because of built-in genetic programming. I only know that, when my friends' daughters go for the dolls, my friends coo just a little louder and say things like 'We didn't encourage that at all - she just naturally prefers the dolls." When their sons go for the dolls, they don't make any special noises of approval and say things like, "You know, he's got an uncle who's gay, and we're totally cool with that."

    21. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be clear that there's no segregation or anyone denying females from attending CS programs. The analogy with racially segregated sports, where the segregation was enforced (a black player would be not allowed on a white team) does not hold up.
      Speaking of lucrative career paths (and CS isn't much these days), I'm reminded of my days on campus seeing the groups of female nursing students wandering around the health science building. How do you think it would be for a man trying to fit in that program socially? It wouldn't be easy, but of course some men who really do feel the calling stick it through and end up in nursing. And they only number about 20%. And you know what? There's no problem with that. Men aren't being "denied lucrative careers" in nursing.

      It's telling that you only hear this huge outcry when it's a deficit of females in a field, but not a deficit of males. It's a case of PC progressed to its awful conclusion - where it's so baked into peoples' subconscious that they don't even realize they are succumbing to the forces of irrational thought. The hyper-militant feminists (misandrists maybe?) who have brought this drivel into the public consciousness bring shame to the real feminist trailblazers who fought for women's rights in the 1920s-1970s. We have moved beyond providing an equal opportunity to all people, to trying to force an equal outcome for everyone with perverse incentives like affirmative action. I have hope tide of history will wash this stain away, and we can simply get back to appreciating who we are as people, and where we choose to go in our lives.

    22. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are looking at it backwards. The problem is not trying to force more women into careers they don't want, it's trying to stop them being put off having careers that they do want.

      It can't be biological or genetic because back in the 80s a far greater percentage of CS grads were women. Even in the 90s we were doing a lot better than we are now. The time scale is too short for evolution to have altered biology or genetics in the population... So either it's some kind of chemical/environmental problem, which would be pretty alarming, or it's social.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re: Boys are naturally curious... by rioki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why should it be social? A testosterone infused .com boom, not social. A aggressive venture capital driven web 2.0 scene, not social.

      My experience with many young and male only teams, they degrade into brogrammers, with all the social ills. When banter and one-up-manship are the daily routine, only few want to participate. These few tend to be young, male and have something to prove.

      This situation is not prevalent in the industry, especially with an R&D department integrated into larger companies. But these these "new and hip" companies, where such bad behavior may thrive, are what people tend to see. I can understand when people, including women do not want to participate, if they perceive that the industry is like this.

    24. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even worse you can see the gender difference in monkeys. Put more clearly monkeys who have *NEVER* seen a toy in their life will exhibit classical gender differences when presented with a mix of wheeled toys and dolls.

      That should put paid to any notions that it is down to cultural barriers.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scie...

    25. Re:Boys are naturally curious... by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope. It's all the mothers with the Disney princess nonsense and the cheerleading (instead of sports). Then you graduate to teen magazines and then after that Cosmo.

      Even the "Damsel in Destress" nonsense from the SJW bloggers contributes to the problem.

      Never mind the parents and Madison avenue and Hollywood. It's all the evil computer geeks fault.

      Nerds just make an easy target for people that always valued socializing more than academic or career preparation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  2. Boys are naturally curious... by rhune · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You must find putting everyone in your boxes pretty easy.

  3. Because women aren't stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That women are more practical than men, and that the well-publicized drastic swings in the CS labor market are offputting to women more than men was confirmed by a 2008 survey in the Communications of the ACM

    That sounds about right. Why would you bet your career on something that is increasingly being viewed as a blue-collar profession?

  4. Re:Geez-Louise! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Again. We have people who assume a conclusion and attempt to work their way back to a "proof" from there.

    Just ask them, already?

    1. Did you consider a career with computers?

    2. Why or why not?

    3. What would make you change your decision?

    4. To the inquirer. Answers such as "Math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" are NOT objective truths, but personal perceptions and, as such, need to be further reinforced by actual concrete instances. And, in fact, if there is the perception that "math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" without objective proff, then additional research needs to be made. Locate the source of these perceptions, address any actual problems found, work to correct any mis-conceptions.

    Lay off the "because Men are Jerks", already. That's not very objective either, and it's just as much a case of bullying, even though it flows in the opposite direction.

    Ideological fights solve no problems.

  5. Congrats guys by KingTank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now we're not just sexist pigs, but we are also in an unstable industry and women will avoid us like the plague. Actually I don't find this stuff as insulting as the "anyone can code" meme. Maybe we should all wear suits so that people take us seriously, like lawyers. Actually, that might be the real reason women don't get involved. Their parents don't take the profession seriously, so they steer their smart daughters away from it.

  6. Here's a Thought... by Alicat1194 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Has anyone, you know, *asked* women why they don't go into CS?

    --
    You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    1. Re:Here's a Thought... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Has anyone, you know, *asked* women why they don't go into CS?

      When the last story came out, a friend of mine posted it and called it [effectively] bullshit. She said she went into computers despite it being a social death sentence at the time (she would have been the target age when those ads were running). Programming a computer was high geekery and something only a true nerd would take on.

      She credits (hold on to your hats, Slashdot) - Bill Gates with making computers cool. Because he was well-known, a complete nerd, and, oh, a multi-billionaire. That last part has some sway with the popular culture still. Jobs may have made Apple cool again, but she sees the swing before that.

      Anyway, her point was that her generation of girls avoided computers like the plague because they cared about social standing, by in large, more than males did. Certainly many males did too, but more males didn't care than females didn't care.

      I think you have to go back a few hundred million years to find a point where some percentage of adolescent male primates didn't stray from the social group in larger numbers than the females. Blame the culture, I guess, and maybe the marketing people reinforced it, but I don't think those ads were largely seen outside of the target groups anyhow.

      People will go on about popular culture promoting boys in computing, but - come on, Wyatt and Gary weren't the center of their social order - they were nearly outcasts before they made Lisa. More girls heard "only freaks use computers" while more males heard "you can have a lot of fun with computers". But, yeah, we should ignore any biological basis and probably shame the chimps for their social orders while we're at it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Here's a Thought... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, and one of the foremost women in Linux wrote an article about it once: http://www.linuxjournal.com/co...

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  7. Makes no sense by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Woman are more rational than men, and don't want to go into CS because it might be a bad job market. So fields like psychology and art history, which have more than enough women, must have amazing job prospects, right? Anyone who thinks about it for two seconds can see that the problem is not that simple.

  8. Re:Geez-Louise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Offshoring is a HUGE consideration for women in tech. It has nothing todo with WESTERN cultural views of women; it has EVERYTHING to do with how the offshore component interacts with western female workers. Regressing to being patted on the head and told not to worry by offshore colleagues is an enormous setback to western women who have worked insanely hard to earn the respect of their peers. Management that is invested in offshoring just pretends that the problem doesn't exist. This is why I no longer work in tech. I loved the work and the intellectual challenges but couldn't tolerate going back to being treated like a child. Western industry is trashing a tremendous resource with its singleminded focus on offshoring. And the alienation of female tech talent is only the tip of the iceberg.

  9. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not yet settled whether there is some sort of discrimination or bias either keeping women out, or pushing them out. Until that is settled, lots of people give a fuck for many different reasons. I'm not going to enumerate them, but I do expect you to at least consider the point.

    In a rare statement of my actual opinion, I don't think there is anything to study. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to study, so I support the studying. I think you are tired of reading about it, so just don't read about it.

    Here's the really big problem: Now that the cat's out of the bag, social websites are picking up the story late. What is this post actually about? NPR is wrong, and is sending the wrong message.

    All of the people who rely solely on NPR for their news are misinformed. And you may run into these misinformed people in a day. Isn't it better to understand what they heard, what faulty conclusions were involved, and be able to speak to those points?

  10. Re:Geez-Louise! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    4. To the inquirer. Answers such as "Math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" are NOT objective truths, but personal perceptions and, as such, need to be further reinforced by actual concrete instances. And, in fact, if there is the perception that "math is hard" or "the guys are bullies" without objective proff, then additional research needs to be made. Locate the source of these perceptions, address any actual problems found, work to correct any mis-conceptions.

    The perception about math is kind of irrelevant, IMO. In two decades of programming, I can count the number of times I've used math above the seventh grade level on one hand, in unary. Yes, there's CS work that involves math, but most of the people doing that work are scientists who also know how to write code, rather than coders who also know complex math. So if that's someone's excuse for not getting into computer programming, the misconceptions run much deeper than whether math is hard....

    What programming does require is a high degree of abstract thinking. Folks who do well in algebra are likely to have no trouble with programming. Mind you, there's a big difference between solving for a variable and assigning a value to one, but at its core, the notion of a name that represents a value is still the same. And that abstract thinking ability becomes critical when you're architecting a piece of software, imagining how the parts are going to fit together before any of them exist. The better you are at thinking abstractly, the better you'll do at programming, from the lowest code monkey jobs to the highest software architect jobs.

    Unfortunately, at least in the United States, IIRC, most tests show a gap in abstract thinking ability between men and women by the time they reach high school. Whether that gap is biological or social in nature is unclear, but as long as that gap in the mean/median of abstract thinking ability exists, you'd expect more men in computer programming than women, because a larger percentage of men will find it easy to learn the core programming concepts, and to then move on to complex architecture work. To achieve a more balanced tech workforce, you have two choices: either take steps to encourage women with strong abstract thinking abilities to choose CS at a higher rate than men with those abilities (a higher percentage of a smaller population) or fix that abstract thinking gap (assuming that it isn't caused by biological differences). All other problems (e.g. "men are jerks") are secondary in importance by comparison to the abstract thinking gap, IMO.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  11. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck off with your ignorance. Women are being pushed out of tech - look at GamerGate

    GamerGate is driven by the trolling of a journalist (Sarkeesian), a political science major (Wu), and an artist (Quinn). Their problem isn't that they are women, their problem is that they are bigots who have made a career out of spreading hatred. These people and their supporters (i.e., you) deserve to be treated like Fred Phelps or David Duke because they are operating the same way. Instead of religious nuts or racist nuts, they are feminist nuts.

  12. Re:Honestly, who gives a fuck? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Interesting

    None of the "victims" in gamergate were techies,

    Isn't Zoe Quinn a programmer of some sort?

    Nope, depression quest was developed using "an open source tool for telling interactive fiction stories" (their own description). For the record, this is something my (almost) eight year old son has done numerous times. Doesn't make him a techie. Makes him a story-teller.

    Using a word processor to write an eBook doesn't make you a kindle-programmer, it makes you an author.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  13. Re:The difference between boys and girls by kaladorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    I am a male and I claim a fairly different nature than thou.

    I also claim your notion of predestination is absolute BS.

    My observations:
    - Women protect their own time more than men in this industry (don't want to do as much overtime, don't want their weekends to vanish, etc) and this leads to a negative management style that penalizes healthy behaviour and thus limits women's progress
    - Women take maternity leave and have kids and that hurts prospects in the high-grind world of CS
    - There are a lot of poorly emotionally developed males in management roles (not all, by any means, but enough that an 'I like my coders young male and single' comment isn't a surprise out of a manager)
    - Women will try to ask for an answer when stumped, guys will try to battle through (taking a long time sometimes) - the best course is usually somewhere in the middle.
    - Women don't particularly love to be abused and they are less willing to put up with it from management than men (who are willing to get called some nasty things by their boss most times)

    The industry is hard on developers and artists and QA people. It burns them out, treating them like disposable resources. Women are smart enough to recognize this and fewer of them want to enter this. Guys are still 'hey, neat tech!' and 'I get to code a video game/drive the space shuttle/build smartbombs/code networked scrabble/etc'. So they still throw themselves into the grinder more willingly.

    Guys also respond more to challenge and to hostile bosses (that's likely deep in our genes) by trying to outperform. That same climate I believe makes a lot of women just want to leave.

    So in summary, it can be a hard field on people and it is managed in ways that drive women from the field.

    My cred: 18 years in software development in a lot of companies (custom software contractor much of the time in and out of companies of all sizes).

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  14. "women are more practical than men" by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks at decorative towels and wash clothes in bathroom we're not allowed to use taking up prime realestate that would be great for useful things.

    Looks at fake flowers sitting on top of storage furniture I access frequently that must be moved before accessing said stored objects and returned.

    Looks at useless decorative items that must remain on kitchen counter despite being useless, in the way, and knocked around regularly.

    Thinks of how many times I've been asked to hold a purse because it's impractical for the owner to do things, or carry something in my pockets because the objects owner didn't bring their own pockets.

    Thinks of how the toilet paper is stored in the closet at the entry of the dwelling because the storage areas in the bathroom are taken care of rarely used beauty products and appliances.

    My head is shaved - literally a bar of soap, a stick of deodorant, a toothbrush, toothpaste, a razor and some shaving gel is all I have for bathroom use in comparison.

    I call this quote for the summary into question

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  15. Equal opportunity vs equal outcomes by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone is entitled to equal opportunity, but absolutely no one is guaranteed equality in outcome.

    So long as the CS field is accessible to everyone - that's all that matters. If a group of people decide that CS work is not for them - that's OK. That is how markets work.

    We should stop wringing our hands about things we cannot control and start focusing our efforts on real problems.

  16. It isn't gender differences by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your observations are accurate, but your conclusion is completely wrong. All the elements you called out are things that would keep women from staying in a CS position for a long duration. Very little of what you listed would be something that a freshman entering CS would be exposed to or have any knowledge of. If your conclusion is correct, we should see a lot more of female CS grads that drop out of the talent pool in the first five years, and what we are actually seeing is they aren't even entering CS programs.

    The problem starts much earlier. Girls start losing interest in STEM topics at a much younger age. There are no positive female role models to show young girls that they can excel at programming and there are plenty of females presented in the media as being interested in 'girl' stuff. Children are highly impressionable, and if they don't see an archetype they probably aren't going to gravitate towards it.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!