Slashdot Mirror


A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

Nerval's Lobster writes In order for a movie or television show to pass the Bechdel Test (named after cartoonist and MacArthur genius Alison Bechdel), it must feature two female characters, have those two characters talk to one another, and have those characters talk to one another about something other than a man. A lot of movies and shows don't pass. How would programming culture fare if subjected to a similar test? One tech firm, 18F, decided to find out after seeing a tweet from Laurie Voss, CTO of npm, which explained the parameters of a modified Bechdel Test. According to Voss, a project that passes the test must feature at least one function written by a woman developer, that calls a function written by another woman developer. 'The conversation started with us quickly listing the projects that passed the Bechdel coding test, but then shifted after one of our devs then raised a good point,' read 18F's blog posting on the experiment. 'She said some of our projects had lots of female devs, but did not pass the test as defined.' For example, some custom languages don't have functions, which means a project built using those languages would fail even if written by women. Nonetheless, both startups and larger companies could find the modified Bechdel Test a useful tool for opening up a discussion about gender balance within engineering and development teams.

300 of 522 comments (clear)

  1. Totally agree with Bechdel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My favorite porn always passes the Bechdel Test.

    1. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Really? How exactly does a horse fit into the Bechdel Test?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He was talking about his, not yours. :)

    3. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Two women and a horse: PASS

    4. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is only pervs who consider images of unclothed women degrading.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or, it's just a joke.

      By the way, I like to have sex with women because I LIKE IT. Not because I want to objectify women. Not because women are some subclass species that must be subordinate to my every whim. Because it's in my nature to want sex with females of my species. The fact that you feel this is wrong in some way just speaks to how out-of-touch you are with reality.

    6. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's a mare.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kinda sad this got modded up so quickly. it seems a kneejerk putdown.

      It was a joke. Which is all this idiotic topic deserves. The Bechdel test makes some (although not much) sense for a movie, where the characters and dialog are the whole point. But for a software project? Why should I care about the gender of who wrote the software I am using? Why should I care about whose function calls another function written by whoever?

      How many garbage trucks, driven by women, pick up trash cans that were put on the curb by a woman? My suspicion is the percentage is very low. Is Obama doing anything about that?

    8. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Not douche, but an insighhtful person who thinks that such positive discrimination and gender bias such as the Bechel test can be so trivially circumvented.

      In this case, 2 women talking to each other about.. well, women. Passes the test completely even though its not exactly feminist material (or is, depending).

      The rest of us think that if women want to be programmers they will be. Same as if men want to be hairdressers, childcare workers or nurses.

      The discrimination and supposedly anti-female culture in IT is really nothing of the sort - its equally pathetic when viewed from a male viewpoint. Me for example, I hate the industry because I am focussed on producing quality deliverables that fit the user's needs, and I can;t stand the so-called 'alpha geek' who thinks he's the best because he's googled the latest cool technology that will be obsolete in a week. That kind of bullshit affects me just as much as female workers.

    9. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's always someone who has to misuse the concept of objectification. Most people don't like having sex with objects as much as with people.

    10. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      I'm trying to figure out why anyone would give a fuck whether any thing or occupation passed this test or not....

      Seems a stupid test on just its premise alone.

      I don't get why anything would ever need to pass such a test or why anyone would care?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Shoten · · Score: 2

      It is only pervs who consider images of unclothed women degrading.

      Not true. A lot of religious fundamentalists also consider imag...oh. Uh, yeah...that's right...good point.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    12. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care. To you this is unimportant, and should not matter. You are incapable of believing that it COULD matter.

      Oh no. Many of us are capable of suspending disbelief that far. I could even write a little story about it. But it would be fiction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The Bechdel test makes some (although not much) sense for a movie

      It confirms that movies about women are boring box-office losers. You'd think that the 51% of the population that is women might be interested in paying for such movies, but apparently not.

    14. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      The Bechdel test makes some (although not much) sense for a movie

      The widespread failure of the test confirms that movies about women are boring box-office losers. You might think that the 51% of the population that is women might be interested in paying to see such movies, but apparently not.

    15. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Livius · · Score: 1

      You are incapable of believing that it COULD matter.

      It's not an issue of capacity of belief. It's just that in this case it doesn't matter.

      The actual Bechdel test, while hardly scientific, is useful because it can make us pause and think about unconscious and systemic bias. This test doesn't even make sense.

    16. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is the crux of the problem, that you do not care.

      Absolute nonsense. No programmer I know gives the slightest damn who wrote a function they use. They just want it to work. And that's the proper way to look at it.

      Insisting that a program include functions written by women that access other functions written by women is by definition sexist. The opposite of sexism isn't more sexism in the opposite direction... it's truly not caring.

      You don't fight discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. It hasn't worked, and it doesn't work. You fight discrimination by eliminating its consideration.

      I no more care whether a software tool I use was written by a woman or a man than I care whether a bolt or a piece of material used in a weekend project was made by a woman or a man. It just has to work. Who made it is completely irrelevant... and should be.

    17. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That has to be the silliest comment I have read on Slashdot this week. Are you actively trying to redefine the term "perv"?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    18. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by BobSteinVisiBone · · Score: 1

      The real Bechdel test for porn would portray a woman intimate with another woman, in a way that would actually turn on another woman. I'm too busy to research it now but I suspect most porn would fail this test.

      --
      Bob Stein, http://bobste.in
    19. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by wept · · Score: 1

      oh, you like it because you like it? that explains it!

    20. Re:Totally agree with Bechdel by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      "It is only pervs who consider images of unclothed women degrading."

      It is only pervs who consider images of unclothed young men degrading. (while listening to Silverchair 'Freak')

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  2. Here's MY test by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

    "a project that passes the test must feature at least one function written by a white male developer, that calls a function written by another white male developer. "

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Woman are actually the majority in many countries. Including the united states.

      http://www.census.gov/prod/cen...

      Minority does not mean what you THINK it means. What you mean is 'disadvantaged'.

    2. Re:Here's MY test by ultranova · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

      "a project that passes the test must feature at least one function written by a white male developer, that calls a function written by another white male developer. "

      So... does that offend you? Why?

      --

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

    3. Re:Here's MY test by fey000 · · Score: 1

      So you don't understand the difference between the words "minority" and "majority". Thanks for telling everyone.

      I totes agree, that guy is a cock mongrel. How dare he imply that all people are created equal, like he's some Jefferson of misogyny. It's almost as bad as the patriarchy's so-called Charter of the United Nations and their oppressive hatespeech about equality and universal peace.

      They should know by now that a minority is worth much more than a white guy. It's like duuh, of course you cannot be prejudiced against white cis males, what planet are you from? Stupid cis-scum the lot 'em, right?

      (For reference, the UN charter http://www.un.org/en/documents... . Check out Ch 1 2, and Ch 1 3. Specifically,

      To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; ...)

      Note the "without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does that sound like the Bechdel test?

    4. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's right; by definition discrimination against the majority is impossible. Just ask South Africa.

    5. Re:Here's MY test by shadowrat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

      "a project that passes the test must feature at least one function written by a white male developer, that calls a function written by another white male developer. "

      i'm a white male and most of my projects don't pass. It's a joke i know, but it's a good metric in a way. Really, joking aside, to pass, a project should feature at least one function written by a developer that calls a function written by another developer. i'm aware that sadly, I don't work as well with others as i should. I often reinvent the wheel and isolate my codebases. From what i've seen, this is common.

    6. Re:Here's MY test by jythie · · Score: 1

      The inverse is often used as a test too, and is not considered offensive.

      It should also be noted that in media, the number of projects that fail the reverse is negligible, while the former is extremely common, even in content that passes the first.. Thus the inverse is useful in demonstrating just how minimal the requirement should be and how unidirectionally it tends to fail.

    7. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It offends me because I could give two shits who wrote a function in a program. All I give a fuck about is does the fucking thing work the way it's supposed to when it hits production; and if not whose salary am I cutting in half next quarter? All groups - Men, Women, each with various levels of melatonin dictating skin color and race - contain shit programmers as well as brilliant ones. It's about the fucking dedication of the coder. Fuck the race card. Fuck the gender card. If I have to fucking fix your shit in production cuz you couldn't be bothered to make sure it works in test and model environments, you're a shit coder. I don't give a shit who you are.

    8. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      ...and if we lived in a world where it was ever a question whether 99.9% of projects would pass your version of that test, you might have a point. In that world, the "white male" version would, for whatever other faults it has, at least be trying to provide a metric for measuring integration of a marginalized group. But as that is not the world in which we live, your version of the test is pointless at best, and offensive at worst not because it is inherently so, but because in the real world it can only serve to gatekeep on behalf of a currently empowered class, not to serve an unempowered one. That is why the tests are different.

      And to the people jumping on Dave420 with stats about national and world population in response to him using the term "minority", please note the "for programmers" part of the title here. The fact that women are a majority of the population at large has zero relevance to a point about their minority status within the relevant context i.e. the industry, other than to underscore the fact that maybe that disparity is indicative of a problem we should look at and have ways to measure our success at addressing.

    9. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Who really gives a shit if the software is delivered on time and bug free?

      What is this, some kind of Women's studies bullshit? Who talks about "Gender Balance" with regards to functions?

      must feature at least one function written by a woman developer, that calls a function written by another woman developer.

      Get the Fuck Out. Seriously, GTFO!

    10. Re:Here's MY test by sycodon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or, women don't give a shit about programming. Like I don't give a shit about interior design, or the latest clothing fashions, two areas dominated by Women.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    11. Re:Here's MY test by fey000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

      Why on earth would you find this offensive if you made the swap? Because you're a white male and it would highlight how virtually no software fails the white male test, but a huge amount fails the female test?

      Why on Earth is it relevant if a software project passes the test? Does it make the code better?

      This is a completely made up non-issue. Should we start rabblerousing about the white guy Bechdel test in the NBA? What about the unfairness of native English speaking programmers in Russia? Should we start a test for them? No, because it's fucking stupid, and contributes 0 to anything other than the wallet of those who get "offended" about "representation" as a profession.

    12. Re: Here's MY test by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You just unintentionally illustrated the entire point of the Bechdel test - how many team software projects pass your version of the test? Nearly all of them, right? The bechdel "test" is meant to illustrate how low the bar is, and how many movies/projects still fail it.

    13. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How dare he imply that all people are created equal

      Actually, while tabula rosa and the rest of that enlightenment crap was a nice try (although I particularly enjoy and love the bill of rights), that portion of it is complete horseshit. People aren't born blank slates, we have a fair bit of programming in us already through instincts, and we're definitely not all equal -- other than in the eyes of the law in theory (not in practice, unfortunately).

      The composition of the NBA and the racial bellcurve on IQ tests will attest to this. It's as nonsensical as to say "all dog breeds are the same".

    14. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have a great binary mind but there's hardly only two possibilities to anything, unless you're Fox New and/or Bill O'Reilly who wants to present an obvious good side and bad side, and guide the audience to their preferred outcome.

      Here's a third possibility: Women are generally less interested in computer science.

    15. Re:Here's MY test by Bengie · · Score: 1

      3rd option, most of the male programmers are not needed. Remove all bad programmers and I bet you'll be left with a roughly 50/50 split of male/female on who is left.

      Random Male Programmer: I was told to go to college after I graduated, but I didn't know what I wanted to do. I figured programming would be easy money, so here I am. What do you mean my algorithm is O(n^3) and doesn't validate user input? How would a user give wrong input? I only give valid options in the HTML drop-down.

      Yeah, get rid of the mouth breathers and we'll have a better ratio.

    16. Re:Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I once was complaining about the high cost of women's swim wear.

      She called me out: 'Make one for me yourself'. I did, but I failed as a clothing designer. Who knew that women wouldn't wear a Bikini made of Saran wrap, dental floss and clear tape?

      I'd have made the cover of 'Sports Illustrated' if I could only get women to wear it. I just feel it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    17. Re:Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The inverse would be an illegal test. Some classes of people are protected from discrimination, others are not.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re: Here's MY test by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The bechdel "test" is meant to illustrate how low the bar is, and how many movies/projects still fail it.

      I think the point isn't whether some movie or coding project passes or fails this test, but that the test is truly meaningless.

      If movie producers want to make movies with two women who talk to each other about something other than men, they are free to do so. Whether it will be a success depends on what they talk about. I think any movie that focuses on two people talking is going to be boring so I wouldn't choose to watch it, no matter whether it was two women or two men. Or one of each. I mean, I found the older Dr. Who talk-talk-talk parts of the series boring, too, and that was a bona fide time lord talking to someone. I admit, talking to Leila was always interesting ... "should I kill him now, Doctor?" And Nyssa. And now Clara. Yes, Clara.

      And to assign functions in a programming project to "woman author" and "man author" is just silly. I have no idea how many projects pass or fail this test simply because I have no interest in (and in most cases no way of identifying) which wrote what.

    19. Re:Here's MY test by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sigh.

      It is sad how many people don't get your point. It isn't that anyone is expecting much software to fail your test, it is that the test itself is foul. The original test.

      Perhaps subtlety is no longer called for. Run the whole article through the translator.

      I'm about fucking done with the SJW invasion of slashdot. Is it possible to take the site back?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    20. Re:Here's MY test by everett · · Score: 1

      But the IQ test has been decried time and again as favoring a specific cultural background over others and, the argument is, that it is inherently biased against non-whites.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    21. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you've missed the point!

      It wasn't easy, I'm sure, but you've done it. You even managed some outrage. It's rather impressive, really.

    22. Re:Here's MY test by itzly · · Score: 1

      How about the IQ tests that were designed by non-white people ?

    23. Re: Here's MY test by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Here is an interesting or painful question, would the Sex in the City movies pass it?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    24. Re:Here's MY test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually fashion is very egalitarian, with many male and female designers, as well as models. Interior design is hardly devoid of either gender either.

      What makes you think women don't like programming? Is it because there are so few women doing it? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:Here's MY test by itzly · · Score: 2

      50% of every team needs to be people who miss the point, otherwise it wouldn't be fair.

    26. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Since when was I talking about race rather than gender in the statement to which you're responding?

    27. Re: Here's MY test by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen them, but both Sex and the City & Sex and the City 2 pass the Bechdel test - one commenter indicates that the first one does not pass the reverse-Bechdel test:
      http://bechdeltest.com/view/74...
      http://bechdeltest.com/view/83...

    28. Re:Here's MY test by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why on earth would you find this offensive if you made the swap?

      I tell you what. Call a meeting with all of your minority and women programmers and ask them if they would find a requirement that all future code "must feature at least one function written by a white male developer, that calls a function written by another white male developer" offensive. If they say "No, it's fine, we're cool with it," then I'll concede the point.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    29. Re:Here's MY test by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think women don't like programming? Is it because there are so few women doing it? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Because most women have simply no interest in it. Otherwise, they could just buy a computer, and teach themselves how to do it. They could buy a hardware device, plug it into their computer, and discover that Linux has no support for it. They could decide to figure out how to write their own device driver, and become a kernel hacker. They may even start their own business. Many men have done exactly that, without anybody pushing them, or even supporting them.

    30. Re:Here's MY test by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I figured programming would be easy money, so here I am.

      You do understand women think that way too, right?

    31. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      If some would-be Larry Bird was talking about how he wanted to break into basketball but was driven away by harassment, or just by a day-to-day hostile environment created by the racial equivalent of guys who think sexism is a net win for women because it's easier for them to strip for a living (seriously?), then we should listen to that guy, too.

      As far as I know, there are a lot more talented women trying to say there's a problem in tech than there are talented white guys trying to say there's a problem in basketball, though, and more often than not their complaints are met with comments like yours. And then we wonder why there aren't more women in IT.

    32. Re:Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What's lacking is _straight_ male clothing or interior designers. We're not the ones who made up: 'There are 47 genders'. But we get to use the argument.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:Here's MY test by meerling · · Score: 1

      Discrimination is discrimination, though trying to apply that gender test to software is blatantly stupid.
      As was pointed out, there tends to be a huge gender gap between the representation of the sexes in software programming.
      Before you can start worrying about silly things like this, maybe people should concentrate on finding out why, and resolving the issues, as to why there are so few females in programming before you start whining about how little they impact the projects they're on.

    34. Re:Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. It could be that female privilege gives them opportunities to work in other careers that men are excluded from. For example, it could be due to rampant discrimination in education where 76% of primary and secondary school teachers are female. With 3.7 million teachers, we have 864 thousand women just in the US that pull from the software developer candidate pool. Teaching isn't the only field where we can see this kind of imbalance.

      After looking at this, we can also look at the number of women who choose to work as opposed to MUST work. If men could simply sleep their way into not having to work, you can be sure the number of men in fields that require life long dedication would decrease. I'm not saying that all women sex their way through life, but during the years when career choices are made, there most certainly are a very large number of them that do, and most of the rest have the option. The fact that this affects career choices isn't because of some genetic difference between men and women. PEOPLE who have the privilege of not working are simply far more likely to... well... not work.

      You can see this with attitudes towards parents after the birth of a child. A father is more likely to get the advice that he now has to buckle down with work, while women are asked if they will just quit working all together. This is going to have an effect on people's career choices. Not because of some genetic factor, but due to environment.

    35. Re:Here's MY test by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter...get'r done!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    36. Re:Here's MY test by meerling · · Score: 2

      As have the socio-economic pressures to excel at sports, crime, or whatever, when other opportunities for self betterment are primarily excluded by cultural and economic restrictions. You grow up poor and black in the ghetto, you are a lot more likely to go into pro-sports than get an engineering degree at Harvard simply due to expenses you can't pay and education quality that wasn't available to you.

      Do you know why historically the Jews were so into banking? It's because stupid discriminatory laws of many countries in Europe used to ban them from almost all other professions. You earn a living in whatever way society will let you.

    37. Re:Here's MY test by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      But the IQ test has been decried time and again as favoring a specific cultural background over others and, the argument is, that it is inherently biased against non-whites.

      Then why do East Asians score higher than whites?

    38. Re:Here's MY test by meerling · · Score: 1

      Agreed. After all, the computer doesn't care if you're an zenomorph with 5 of the 13 genders and sporting a bright plaid tan.

    39. Re:Here's MY test by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's actually a more interesting fact than you might think. Males are actually more likely at birth, and outnumber females until the age of 30 or so. But in the > 30 demographic females are in the majority, and that majority increases with age. Why? Because males die at a higher rate. Being male has a higher risk of death than being female.

    40. Re:Here's MY test by meerling · · Score: 1

      Or due to the lack of participation of women in programming any expectation of them to have an equal representation in projects by that field is just plain stupid.
      The real issue is the lack of women that are programmers, not that they don't have an equal influence on the results despite only being a small percentage.
      Face it, if one group is only 10% of the workforce, you can't expect them to have 50% of the credit.

    41. Re:Here's MY test by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      FWIW, my current project fails since we only have one woman on the team.

      right, Julie you can ignore this, but HR has said we have targets to meet so the rest of you have to nominate someone who's gong to have to wear a dress. Wayne, or should I say Waynetta, its probably going to be you.

    42. Re:Here's MY test by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Then why do East Asians score higher than whites?

      I give up. Because the test scores their answers that way? Because white people weren't quite smart enough to devise a test that was able to systematically discriminate against all races other than Caucasian without being caught? Because Asians with stupid kids don't force them to take the test? There are any number of reasons.

      However, the factoid asked by you still says nothing about the validity of IQ test either across race or in general. I'd say you've got one around 110-115 - better than most by enough to sort of know it, not quite smart enough to be particularly creative in your arguments. Try to study a bit more, and you'll be up with the Mensans in no time.

      Me? I tend to make my own scales. I'm pretty high on most of them, Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding.

      --
      That is all.
    43. Re:Here's MY test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      True, employers love self-taught programmers. I don't know why men waste time going to university to study CS when they could just buy a computer and teach themselves.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re: Here's MY test by davydagger · · Score: 1

      I can think of one video game, "portal", where both the sole protagonist and antagonist are female.

    45. Re:Here's MY test by itzly · · Score: 2

      True, employers love self-taught programmers.

      I wasn't talking about getting hired. I was talking about following a passion. That's where it all starts. And if you have a passion for programming, you'll find that the barrier to get started is very low. All it takes is a cheap computer and access to the internet. And you can even pick a neutral nickname/e-mail address, and start working on open source projects without anybody even being able to judge you on your gender.

      The simple fact is that very few women are interested in that. Incidentally, very few men are interested in that kind of stuff either, but still a lot more than women.

    46. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The disparity is a problem we should look at and address. It's the whole point. The defenders of the status quo claim it's because maybe women just don't want those jobs; or they claim there's opportunity for any to apply for the jobs. That's part of the problem right there: the status quo. People who are in a decent position don't want change, the boat feels stable so don't start rocking it.

      I think there's also the worry that if someone accepts that there might be a problem that it automatically assigns blame to them, or assigns blame to all males, etc. This is why I think so many become so offended that others might be offended.

    47. Re:Here's MY test by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that there may be societal pressures about what a woman is supposed to be, and a nerdy programmer doesn't fit that?

      It's the same pressure that makes guys think that liking "pink" is bad, or liking flowers is girly, or liking babies is something for women, and that fighting/violence is masculine.

      To assume that women have no interest in something and thus that interest MUST be inherent and not because of various societal pressure about what it means to be a "woman" seems a bit short-sighted. Are there similar pressures for men? Sure. But overall, it seems men have much greater freedom - and, historically, have had more or less the same freedoms whereas women have had even fewer - about their career and interest choices.

      It's very interesting to me that "interior design" and "fashion" were mentioned earlier in this thread. You may as well have thrown in "cooking" and "secretary-ing" (is there a verb form of that? ha) and covered almost all of the "typical woman" jobs. Strange that there are so few and they are so un-technical.

      I have a daughter now, and am more aware of how society ... treats women, so to speak ... from a young age. When's the last time you gave a lego set to a girl? or gave them a book about planes or tractors or cars? It's *hard* to, because all of the advertising for "girl's" stuff is pink, fluffy, princess, dolls, flowers, and the like. Try finding an ad - or an example of a gift - for somehing more technical than Barbie that is "meant" for a girl. Or try giving a young girl a lego set for her birthday and see what the other adults think.

      It seems this is changing somewhat again, and for good reason. We will be doing our best to give our daughter what she appears to be interested in by herself, and not try to make her conform to what society thinks she SHOULD be interested in - talking on the phone, makeup, boys, interior decorating, and baking. She'll have access and support if she wants to do math, science, computers, software, programming, animals, medicine, vet medicine, physics, geology, politics, cooking... or, yes, if she decides that what she wants most in life is to be a wife and mother. And if she doesn't like pink - that's fine, too. And we won't call her a "tomboy" and won't let others call her a "tomboy" in our presence if she just happens to like things that "traditionally" are boy things - like, uh, running around outside... because, clearly, that's only for boys.

      (for the record, I hold other beliefs that would make "feminists" quite annoyed. I am no SJW; I just happen to think that women have long been thought of as inferior in intellect, among other things, and pressured to be what men want them to be - pretty things to look at.)

    48. Re:Here's MY test by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > But in practice we have half the population who are capable of programming but who are severely underrepresented

      That's a totally unsupported assumption.

      It also ignores the question of DESIRE. It completely degrades half of the population by stripping them of any sort of free will at all.

      That's the whole problem with these do-gooder crusades that fixate this kind of "imbalance" while ignoring the the imbalances in the skilled trades or nursing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    49. Re: Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think the important point of the Bechdel test is that it shows how women are not the primary demographic movies are intended for. The Bechdel test isn't about pointing out disparities in movie casting or showing that sexism exists in the writer's room.

      In real life outside the movies it is a very common situtation where two women can have a conversation which is not about men (good things or bad things). In the movies though this is rare. Yes there are many examples that do pass the Bechdel test but far far fewer than you'd expect if the movies were trying to reflect the real world. Compare this to other forms of media; novels do tend to represent women well, even stage plays do a reasonable job, however movies and television don't. The point of the Bechdel test is to make one stop and think, and it's a very simple test.

      So in this sense, adapting the Bechdel test to things like job balance doesn't make as much sense. Programming has never pretended to mirror the real world of the average humans. There may be discrimination, bias, and so forth, but that's not what the Bechdel test is about.

    50. Re:Here's MY test by itzly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you considered that there may be societal pressures about what a woman is supposed to be, and a nerdy programmer doesn't fit that?

      Yes, I have considered that. Have you considered that there's also societal pressures against men who are nerdy programmers ? Or against men wanting to become fashion designers ? Still, if you have a passion, you're not going to let society stop you.

      Or try giving a young girl a lego set for her birthday and see what the other adults think.

      I have a son and a daughter, and we had boxes of legos, cars, dolls, and various other toys all in the living room where both could play with anything they wanted. And from the beginning it was very clear that they had their own interests. Even if they were both playing with the legos, my son was always building cars and bridges with them. My daughter was building houses and people.

    51. Re:Here's MY test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, its because of all the non-coding factors involved both during education and in the work place.

      Nobody gives a shit who wrote a function to be sure. But there's a much higher chance that a woman will be harassed for the style of shirt she wore when she wrote said function than a man would.

      That's why this "function" test is absolutely stupid. The performance of a function has exactly zero relation to the gender (or skin color or sexual preference) of the person who wrote it. Basing your project design strategy around those factors is both futile and a waste of time and resources that could be put towards improving the product (or I don't know, improving the work environment so that this is less of an issue in the first place.)

    52. Re:Here's MY test by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      And men are underrepresented in giving birth.

      Translation: No one give a shit about a non-issue

    53. Re: Here's MY test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Metroid! I can't imagine the "mother" brain would be any less female than the robotic GLaDOS.

    54. Re:Here's MY test by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      Or try giving a young girl a lego set for her birthday and see what the other adults think.

      I did that for my niece. My brother looked at me like I was Satan incarnate, and instantly developed a psychosomatic limp...

    55. Re:Here's MY test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, same problem.

      The tests don't discriminate by skin color -- they discriminate by cultural and social background. In particular they're generally aimed at the middle to upper class American population. Which is predominately white Americans.

      That is to say, the racial "bias" of the test is a side-effect of the racial bias in the population distribution, not a (direct) bias of the test itself.

      And there's not really much that can be done about that.. if you gear the test to the lower class, you'll end up biasing (for better or worse) towards the "minority" populations (though there's still a lot of white people in America's lower class.) If you try to have two (or more) separate tests then you'll just end up with everyone claiming that they're not measuring the same thing and thus are incomparable or even that they're both invalid. Its a no-win situation.

      A more interesting question is whether the test discriminates by gender. Males and females, even when they're equally smart by any measure you can come up with, don't process information in exactly the same way. I'm not sure how big those differences are or whether they'd induce a bias in an IQ test, but its a lot more likely than an impact based on the melanin levels of two equally affluent and educated people of the same sex.

      Of course the IQ test is mostly discredited as an indicator of anything beyond how well you take IQ tests, even among its target audience, so this is pretty much a non-issue for most people these days anyway.

    56. Re:Here's MY test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. But 4+ years of getting harassed through a male-dominated college program likely disavows many of them of that idea before they have a chance to move on to the work force.

      I think the OP's point breaks down into two points:
      - Gender doesn't affect being a good programmer.
      - Bad female programmers don't make it to the work force while bad male programmers do -- statistically speaking.

      Thus if you cut out the bad programmers, you'd be cutting a large portion of males while only a small portion of females, and the remaining balance of good programmers would be significantly closer to the equality line (though probably still biased toward the male side I'm guessing, as there's likely a number of potentially good female programmers who also didn't make it to the work force.)

    57. Re:Here's MY test by izat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The proportion of women in my workplace is about the same as the proportion of women in my computer science courses. Blame schools, parents, or the media. This imagined discrimination in the workplace has nothing to do with it.

    58. Re:Here's MY test by izat · · Score: 1

      Equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Women have equal opportunity in most western countries.

    59. Re:Here's MY test by Altrag · · Score: 1

      No, but when they get 2% of the credit there's a problem. And that's sort of the situation we discover whenever there's a large discriminatory bias -- the majority tends to overwhelm the minority and give them far less credit than they're due -- never mind giving them more credit than they're due.

      In terms of employment, said credit is usually measured in salary dollars and we find in study after study that women and minorities are still getting, on average across the US, less compensation for their work than a white male in the same position. Generally speaking the numbers have been improving over the decades, but a quick jaunt to Wikipedia places it at around a 20% difference (2009 data) -- which is huge!

      Not all of that discrepancy is explicitly due to discrimination but a good portion of it is, and of course that particular article is measuring the overall average pay discrepancy so its harder to read the explicit gender bias from the implicit ones (due to women tending toward lower paying jobs in general.. which has its own discrimination implications but at a much wider societal level.) But the article goes into some of that and I'm sure if you have a little more motivation to Google things than I do, you can find real studies with more direct comparisons.

    60. Re:Here's MY test by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      If no one gives a shit about who writes functions, then why are women so underrepresented in computing? Do not say it because women don't like programming or engineering, because that's clearly false. Women had much more representation in the industry 30 years ago. It's been declining over the years while the frat boy attitude in the workplace has been going up.

      If you're perfect, then great. But there are many men who are offended that women would even compete with them, many men who intimidate others especially women, many men who think telling a dirty joke is proper on-the-job conduct, many men who see discrimination but do nothing about it and thus reinforce the status quo.

      I'm old enough to remember when people claimed there was no racism in the 70s either.

      To answer your first question: Women aren't underrepresented in computing as much as they're underrepresented in many computing-related roles. There are, for example, very few women code monkeys who are willing to replace their social life with writing software. This has nothing to do with how good they are at it, but more a) that they value a social life more than individual accomplishment, b) don't want to spend their time fueled by energy drinks in front of a computer in dim lighting surrounded by overweight sweaty men with pizza stains on their shirts, c) don't want to have to deal with the large number of social misfits such occupations usually attract, and d) the hiring managers tend to hire the people most like the ones who currently are their best performers (which makes getting women into the roles in the first place very difficult).

      Plus, there's the whole education issue; women often don't get the training in the first place to even place for these jobs, due to societal pressures, having to deal with those same people in school, and choice.

      So... we talk about women being underrepresented in computing mostly because these are highly paid jobs. We don't talk about women in garbage disposal being underrepresented, even though the ratios are similar and likely the reasons for underrepresentation are also similar.

      The truth is that there HAS been centuries of mysogeny at work, and some level of gender bias in the other direction is needed in order to combat the pressures that have nothing to do with individual ability. As such, this sort of test is useful at measuring current norms.

      HOWEVER, this sort of test is NOT good at gaming gender bias or effecting change. That has to be done on a much more general level. Getting your three female coders to specifically write code that depends on each other's code doesn't really change anything other than the test results. Encouraging the daughters of all your coders to come in and see some of the rewarding things their parents are working on could have a much more significant long-term effect.

      That said, I recently had to have "the other talk" with my kids -- the one about racism. Not because people were being racist, but because they stumbled into "affirmitive action" plans that made absolutely no sense to them, and they couldn't figure out why people would set up rules like that. It was equally incomprehensible to them that people would link intelligence/suitability for a task to someone's skin colour or grandparent's continent of origin. But if my generation hadn't had those affirmative action campaigns, my children would now know exactly why such plans are (still) in place.

    61. Re: Here's MY test by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      You don't use version control?

    62. Re:Here's MY test by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Racism and sexism do offend me. Even when it is against white males, or when it is women degrading women or minorities degrading minorities.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    63. Re: Here's MY test by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Alien passes: http://bechdeltest.com/view/13... - it's actually the movie specifically called out in the originating comic as passing.

      But to answer your broader question, whether an individual movie passes or not isn't /really/ the point of the test. The point is to look at patterns in movies as a whole - that "passing the Bechdel test" is not a given, despite how minimal the requirements actually are. There really are very few movies that don't pass the "reverse Bechdel test" - it's something like 90% of movies that have at least two dudes who talk about things that aren't women.

      http://www.passthebechdeltest.... for some more reading.

    64. Re:Here's MY test by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      But if you are missing the point you will probably get benched.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    65. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Men are not capable of giving birth. Women are highly capable at doing technical and engineering jobs. This is a real issue, not something made up for political correctness.

    66. Re:Here's MY test by everett · · Score: 1

      Your citation proves my point in the very last sentence. "but "Yes" if you extend interpretations to "intelligence," whatever that is."

      Basically that an IQ test score only tells you how well someone did on an IQ test and is not an objective measure of their intelligence or possible performance.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    67. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Free will is there of course. But free will is based upon past experiences as well, assuming that only free will is involved. However the balance has changed over time. Women used to be much better represented, today they're poorly represented. Of course some guys who are used to the status quo say "who gives a shit?" But the change in represention strongly indicates that there is some sociological effect going on here, it is not a matter of different genes or hormones.

      Free will also is not the only effect here. Children are taught unequally as they grow up. Girls are encouraged not to do boy's type of play, boys are taught not to do girl's type of play. As they get older girls are told that some jobs are not for them, that they should be working to get good husbands. TV says to look pretty. It sounds archaic or from some depressed third world society, but it is indeed happening in subtle ways. So by the time it comes to pick out a career or major in college these days, the number of women choosing computing, mathematics, or engineering is small (and in my experience much smaller than it used to be).

      Then there is bias. It absolutely exists. You may claim that you yourself have never shown any bias in any form, but that would be untrue. Everyone is biased. But even if you're more egalitarian than the average you're not everyone. There are going to be people who unconsciously downgrade a resume with a female name up top. Over time that bias multiplies.

      Sure, if nursing has a problem, we should fix that too. But to say to do nothing at all until the entire world is equal is the same as saying do nothing. There is indeed an imbalance, it is getting worse over time, so claiming there is no problem is also naive or perhaps a political stance.

    68. Re:Here's my test by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      So for multi-national companies, the largest % should always be Chinese, followed by Indian?

      It all makes sense now, Chinese manufacturing and Indian call centres...

    69. Re:Here's MY test by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that there's also societal pressures against men who are nerdy programmers ? Or against men wanting to become fashion designers ? Still, if you have a passion, you're not going to let society stop you.

      Yes. In limited ways, I experienced some of it. But that said, I think there's more pressure on women to conform than men. And regardless of who has more or less pressures, the point is that it's worth it to try to point out that those pressures should at the very least be made known, if not corrected. For guys as well as girls, yes... though, like I said, I observe it to be a more significant problem for women than men.

      I have a son and a daughter, and we had boxes of legos, cars, dolls, and various other toys all in the living room where both could play with anything they wanted. And from the beginning it was very clear that they had their own interests. Even if they were both playing with the legos, my son was always building cars and bridges with them. My daughter was building houses and people.

      I jumped to conclusions about you, my apologies for that. And this is what we want to do as well.

    70. Re:Here's MY test by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      "plaid" is the Scottish word for "blanket", You should have said "tar-tan".

    71. Re:Here's MY test by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      And you can even pick a neutral nickname/e-mail address, and start working on open source projects without anybody even being able to judge you on your gender.

      The fact that you even have to bring that up indicates there is a problem and all things are not, in fact equal.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    72. Re:Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Anything that discourages visible girl nipples is a bad thing. Don't harass her, figure out who shes tarting up for and stay out of his way. Don't cock block.

      Of course if the nipples are hanging at waist level...total darkness fixes a lot, but that's a judgement call.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    73. Re:Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      A girl name implies a disturbed male and/or troll in this environment.

      e.g. all the guys hanging out in lesbian chat rooms really are gay. There are no women in there.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    74. Re: Here's MY test by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Who wrote the function. The one who took a steaming dump or the one who fixed it?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    75. Re: Here's MY test by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      I know you said not to say it, but I'll say it anyway - it's because they're not interested. It's not like they're getting thrown out of the registrar's office when they try to sign up for CS classes.

    76. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Nobody is arguing against doing those things. But there's not much point to them if you don't have ways to measure your success, and someone has proposed a (not even "then", just "a") way to do that. You're creating a false dichotomy.

    77. Re: Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But they are being discouraged earlier than that sometimes. The parent who says good girls don't do technical stuff. The peer pressure from other classmates. And so forth. Girls used to be interested in this stuff, now it's a lot rarer, there's got to be a deeper reason than a statistical anomaly.

    78. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Ok, fair point. Unless you're prepared to make the case that white males (or, as an actual counter to the proposed test, just males in general) are a marginalized class in IT it doesn't affect my thesis, but fair point about the racial demographics. Sorry about that.

    79. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, telling of how long it's been since I've followed basketball. :P

      But again, are you saying these stories are out there? If so, they should be listened to. If not, what's your point?

    80. Re:Here's MY test by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      As they get older girls are told that some jobs are not for them, that they should be working to get good husbands. TV says to look pretty. [...] So by the time it comes to pick out a career or major in college these days, the number of women choosing computing, mathematics, or engineering is small (and in my experience much smaller than it used to be).

      Granting all of the above is true, it's still not clear what can be done when many/most women, whether for reasons inherent or socially acquired, are simply not much interested in programming as a career(*). You can't tell them "oh yes you are interested, you have to be, because women are under-represented in this field" without denying them the right to make their own decisions about what they want to do with their lives.

      It seems to me that if you want to crack this nut, you'd have to teach better parenting skills and try to reach girls at the elementary school level. By the time the woman is a young adult, her preferences are likely already largely formed.

      (*) in this case, "not much interested" can be defined as "not sufficiently interested to spend the thousands of solitary hours necessary to become really good at it"

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    81. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see from another comment what I think you mean. You're right, I shouldn't have suggested that 99.9% of coders are white males. White males are still far from a marginalized group in the industry, though, particularly where I am in the US, which was my actual point.

    82. Re: Here's MY test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The test has nothing to do with a single movie or project. A movie may pass or fail the test and nobody suggests that fact is meaningful in any way. What is meaningful is the averages across the industry. If only a couple movies are released a year that pass the test that does tell you something. If no software passes the test that tells you something. If your pet project passes the test that tells you nothing.

    83. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      This is nonsense.

      A fitting prelude to your post. At least you were honest about what followed. In case you were actually serious:

      Neither autism nor any of the particular metaphysical assumptions you offer are relevant to the topic.

      Further, while it's true that the average computer programming job in the 1960's is different than it is today, it's gotten significantly easier. So simple, in fact, that many mentally handicapped men, as you point out, opt for a career in programming.

    84. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. Well, not even close!

      While it's true that most women have similar opportunities, they also face dramatically different obstacles.

      People like you, for example.

    85. Re:Here's MY test by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      [created equal] portion of it is complete horseshit. People aren't born blank slates

      He was talking about rights, not abilities and characteristics.

    86. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      Here's a third possibility: Women are generally less interested in computer science.

      No. That's the problem. The question here is "why?"

      My guess? The industry is a cesspit. It's hostile to all, but to women in particular. Hobbyist communities, online forums, and (particularly) OSS projects are even worse. It sucks for men, sure, but it sucks even more for women.

      Think about the shitheads that make your workplace a living hell. Now imagine that, while you're physically weaker, they're also making unwanted sexual advances and, possibly on occasion, "accidentally" groping you. On top of all that, regardless of your actual performance, you're considered to be half as good as the worst guy on the team.

      Does that sound like your dream job?

    87. Re:Here's MY test by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      There has been zero evidence or proof that the current situation is bad in any qualitative or objective way. Thus, any effort to correct it is based on hand-wavy feelings that women should make up a larger percentage of the workforce. Hand-wavy feelings are never a good reason to force whole populations to do things they might not want to do. Basically, it's tyranny dressed up in political correctness.

    88. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      No one is asking whole populations to change. In particular, no one is asking self entitled while male programmers to stop programming, if that is indeed what they're so scared of that causes them to panic whenever the subject comes up.

    89. Re:Here's MY test by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Please outline the exact problem with the current situation. Are female programmers starving because they can't get work? Is the trouble in the ME caused by women locked out of programming jobs? Will Putin stop invading sovereign nations if we just hire more girls? Will poverty in the US cease the moment we start affirmative action to hire more women in tech? Will a 3rd party candidate finally be elected President?

      Really. What exactly is the problem? What is objectively wrong about the current situation?

    90. Re: Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      But they are being discouraged earlier than that sometimes. The parent who says good girls don't do technical stuff. The peer pressure from other classmates. And so forth. Girls used to be interested in this stuff, now it's a lot rarer, there's got to be a deeper reason than a statistical anomaly.

      Okay, the numbers are different now than they used to be in the 80's. Why do you think that this MUST be due to sexism, frat-boy environment, etc? There is no evidence for any those things you believe in.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    91. Re:Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Free will is there of course. But free will is based upon past experiences as well, assuming that only free will is involved. However the balance has changed over time. Women used to be much better represented, today they're poorly represented. Of course some guys who are used to the status quo say "who gives a shit?" But the change in represention strongly indicates that there is some sociological effect going on here,

      No, it doesn't indicate that at all - there are many explanations other than sociological ones. Why do you believe that the change in numbers MUST BE because of sexism?

      Evidence of a change in numbers is only evidence of a change in numbers, it is not evidence of your explanation for the change.

      The problem that isn't going to go away is that sociology isn't taught as a real science and usually doesn't do real science. In real science you don't get to look at the numbers and then manufacture a reason for them, you need evidence to support your explanation for the observation of the numbers. Sociology is doing it the wrong way around.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    92. Re:Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      No one is asking whole populations to change. In particular, no one is asking self entitled while male programmers to stop programming, if that is indeed what they're so scared of that causes them to panic whenever the subject comes up.

      To be honest, it's the "for" gang that have been getting more strident and abusive; I expect that this is because too many people are posting actual statistics and asking the activist camp to provide some sort of evidence for their assertions. I ask for evidence all the time and never get any, but the minute you do you get labelled as a misogynistic, scared, white male. I'm not even a white male, but it seems that asking for evidence is the ultimate insult to a certain group of people.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    93. Re:Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, there are a lot more talented women trying to say there's a problem in tech

      No, there aren't. There are a few brilliant females in tech but they aren't saying anything because they're too busy enjoying what they do. The ones I've seen saying that there is a problem in tech are those that have not displayed any technical ability. They are social science students, and *they* don't want to be in tech personally, they just feel that more women should be in tech (just not them, personally).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    94. Re:Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Actually fashion is very egalitarian, with many male and female designers, as well as models. Interior design is hardly devoid of either gender either.

      What makes you think women don't like programming? Is it because there are so few women doing it? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      What makes *you* think they all like it? *We* may think that they don't like it due in some part to occams razor - the simplest explanation that encompasses all available evidence is probably the correct one.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    95. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I never said it was due to sexism, just sociological reasons rather than biological ones.

    96. Re:Here's MY test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What's wrong is that it's unbalanced. You may not care, but I've worked in environments with more female coders and it's a nicer place to work. So what is the worst thing that can happen if people pay attention to this topic? (other than some Limbaugh-esque fears about female nazis taking over, the guy is a comedian and not someone to take seriously)

    97. Re:Here's MY test by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I never said it was due to sexism, just sociological reasons rather than biological ones.

      Well, do you have any evidence that it is due to $SOC rather than $BIO?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    98. Re:Here's MY test by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      A girl name implies a disturbed male and/or troll in this environment.

      Is this an example of Poe's law?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    99. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck a gender balanced workforce. I don't see one in primary school education, or nursing, or garbage collection.

      Why pick on my industry, one of the few that genuinely rewards and respects competence? What, is it because an industry that rewards and respects competence has somehow managed to be successful and generate high wages? Well be competent then, and you'll get respect and rewards.

      Don't want to do this type of work, don't want to put the effort in, don't find it easy? Go be a fucking garbage collector, they need gender balance.

    100. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm pissed off because I see a small subset of society demanding special privileges and demanding that another section of society suffers as a result.

      If you want to be a programmer, write some fucking code. It's not exactly hard.

    101. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What makes you think any white male programmer is scared?

      Here's a clue: They're programmers. It means they operate logically, they're above average intelligence, they think about things and they act with reason.

      Unlike you.

    102. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Neither autism nor any of the particular metaphysical assumptions you offer are relevant to the topic.

      They are. A lot of people get into programming because computers are easy to understand, follow simple straightforward rules and provide consistent responses when given consistent prompts.

      People do not. This makes them hard to understand, hard to interact with and (at a young age) a source of aggression, stress and harassment.

      Now consider the average man, four times more likely to have an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) than the average woman. That means he's more likely to be scared, confused and illtreated by the people around him, and therefore far more attracted to working with the calm, sensible, understandable computer.

      Unlike the woman, who has greater social skills and very likely enjoys the social interaction much more than working on a cold impersonal machine.

      So yes, it is relevant.

      many mentally handicapped men, as you point out, opt for a career in programming.

      So it is relevant then. Hmm.

    103. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Confirm how many white males are in programming.

      Not very fucking many around here. It's all Indian outsourcers.

    104. Re: Here's MY test by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      I think any movie that focuses on two people talking is going to be boring so I wouldn't choose to watch it

      A movie doesn't have to "focus" on this to pass the test. It literally needs to have a single scene in which two women talk to each other about something other than a man. It could be a 30-second conversation about how they're going to defuse a bomb. It's a stupidly easy test to pass, and most media doesn't pass it, because most stories are about men and about how everything in the entire movie relates to those men.

    105. Re:Here's MY test by miach · · Score: 1

      There's actually increasing evidence that there are more females on the autistic spectrum than thought, because the diagnosis tests (and those performing them) are biased towards the way males present. (Along with a number of other things, including depression and heart attacks)

    106. Re:Here's MY test by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Note the "without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". Does that sound like the Bechdel test?

      No. The UN charter and human rights are about equal opportunities, the Bechdel test is about equal outcomes.

      It's a common error to assume that equal opportunities should achieve equal outcomes, but they almost never do. That is, even in the complete absence of discrimination, you still get highly unequal outcomes based on race, sex, language, and religion.

      In order to actually achieve equality of outcome, you have to deprive some people of rights and manipulate others into doing this they aren't interested in doing.

    107. Re:Here's MY test by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Within the US, "whites" are not the top performers on IQ tests. And generally, IQ tests correlate very well with later performance in life, and the correlation with culture is a simple result that culture, too, correlates with later performance in life. That is, it isn't that IQ tests are unfairly biased to give some groups higher scores; it's that some groups actually perform better than others and the IQ test reflects that.

      (Note that the differences in performance are not racial; that is, the same "race" or "culture" may do very well in one country and poorly in another country.)

    108. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      If you think I came within a mile of "conceding" something as idiotic as the notion that men are "biologically" better at STEM than women, either I seriously mis-spoke or you seriously mis-read.

      And then you top it off by suggesting that if someone concedes your stupid generalizations about race, they have to also concede your stupid generalizations about sex?

      Umm, no.

      Also, wtf?

      But anyway, now that you've come out and admitted that you think women are inferior to you when it comes to IT, thank you for playing the "demonstrate the problem we've been talking about" game.

    109. Re:Here's MY test by Nermal · · Score: 1

      Do you expect me to be surprised that there exist women who have enjoyed easy integration into tech? I mean, of course there are! How sad would it be if that weren't so? That doesn't mean others don't have a harder time, that they aren't driven out by the kind of workplace engendered (so to speak) by people like the ACs upthread who are coming right out and saying that they think most women are naturally inferior when it comes to STEM, that they just whine, don't have real concerns, and how they fail to appreciate all the "attention" given to them by their helpful colleagues.

      I actually agree with many of the author of this post's points, to an extent, but she's basically going from "my experience wasn't like yours" to "therefore yours isn't real", and that's not how that works. As people in this thread have so helpfully demonstrated, there are some really toxic attitudes out there, the kind that start with "I only want to judge people on how well they can code", but don't take long to get to "everybody knows girls just aren't as good at coding as guys are", and while it's great that a woman can have a career without encountering that, many do, which reinforces the "you aren't wanted here" message that things like girl-centric tech courses and, to bring this back to the original point, organizations sending a different message by doing things that acknowledging the importance of integration, are trying to circumvent.

    110. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      So it is relevant then. Hmm.

      No, I was making fun of you. See, you believe that programming is just too difficult for women yet believe that the mentally challenged are qualified. I'm pointing out that it's easier than it has ever been -- a point to which you're sure to agree as you hold the absurd belief that mentally handicapped people are attracted to the profession.

      It is possible that you're a mentally disabled programmer, and simply believe that your personal experience is common. That I'll believe.

    111. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You miss the point that people whose brains work in a specific way are more likely to enjoy and want to programming computers.

      The person you were trying to mock highlighted that men are far more likely to have a brain that works that way.

      As it happens that particular learning disability doesn't stop intelligent people working effectively with computers, only with people. So your other point that programming must be easier if mentally disabled people can do it is misplaced, flawed, ignorant and inflammatory.

    112. Re:Here's MY test by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      I do write code every day (well, except the weekends - I have my boundaries). Over my 30+ year career, I've probably written quite a bit. Most of the female people I've been privileged to work with (and manage) as programmers have done the same.

      However, getting back to the subject, I don't see a lot of suffering coming about as a result of this "small subset", as you call them. I mainly see inexcusable behavior called out and people who do it publicly exposed and then suffering as a result. Is this why you suffer? Maybe it's deserved.

      --
      That is all.
    113. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      You miss the point that people whose brains work in a specific way are more likely to enjoy and want to programming computers.

      I didn't miss it, it's just total nonsense. I'd call it wishful thinking from socially inept basement-dwellers. They get to pretend that their poor hygiene and lack-of-success with women indicates that they're really super-programmers.

    114. Re:Here's MY test by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Thanks for confirming that you're a prejudiced idiot.

      Most people I know that have been diagnosed with Aspergers are married, usually with kids.
      Nobody I know lives in a basement.
      Nobody I know has hygiene problems.

      You're just a blinkered fuckwit. Now go take your bigoted views elsewhere.

    115. Re:Here's MY test by narcc · · Score: 1

      Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

  3. The dumbest thing by JonathanP.Bennett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, this is the dumbest thing ever. Just make the code work. I don't care at all if women wrote it. There are so many issues that actually matter, and this isn't one of them.

    1. Re:The dumbest thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the kind of thing that discourages women in traditionally male-dominated fields. Nobody cares if a programmer is a man or a woman if they can write good code. But when a team member starts disrupting the work culture with irrelevant things like making things a man vs. woman contest, they're no longer going to be welcome regardless of their sex.

    2. Re:The dumbest thing by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Whoa! Stop with those common sense arguments you AC devil, you!

    3. Re:The dumbest thing by JonathanP.Bennett · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then someone else will make it work. The test suggest that we should care about the gender of the coder more than the effectiveness of the code. That is sexism. How exactly did I call for a stop to learning? If someone really wants to examine their code for such a test, that's up to them. I'll stick with prioritizing code quality over gender, thanks.

    4. Re:The dumbest thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, essentially, you're setting the premise that because he essentially proclaims gender-blindness when it comes to software development that he is against learning....

      I don't agree with that premise, but if a woman doesn't want to be a software programmer, that's her choice. I don't really see any hard barriers to women being programmers if they want to, and I do have female friends who program professionally and they don't generally have an issue finding a job anymore than the rest of us. What's more interesting to me is that this article, like all of the articles before it (and the pattern is really quite tiring) all suggest that men are why women don't want to be programmers because male programmers are a bunch of sexists and that we don't want any women in our clique.

      Well, I hang out among programmers, because I taught myself to program at 11 years old, and quite frankly the majority of my programmer friends that hang around see nothing strange about women occasionally involved on the occasions that they are and we certainly never discourage it. There's maybe one guy in the communities I visit that seems to have a bit of an attitude problem toward women, but he's an outlier as far as I'm concerned and I have to question whether or not you're going to find just as many people like that in other professions. Also, given my experience there seem to be assholes employed pretty much anywhere in all sorts of positions, so if that one outlier is a big problem for you, you might as well just give up working altogether from my point of view. I had to deal with plenty of shit at my job as a white male.

      P.S. If it's the case that male programmers are associated with being all sorts of messed up, perhaps it's good that women aren't programmers. Then they can avoid the plague of being messed up as every male programmer clearly is.

    5. Re:The dumbest thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what if the people who could make the code work are women who don't want to work in IT due to some hitherto-undiscovered reason?

      The hitherto-undiscovered reason was discovered a long time ago. It's just that you radfems refuse to listen to it because it goes against your already strongly held prejudices. It's simple: When women have the freedom to choose all else being equal, they choose differently to men.

      Just once, it would be fucking great if one of these radfem retards started a business that was, you know, concerned with software development. As far as I know the only businesses they ever start are about their own self-promotion. They almost never studied STEM subjects themselves.

    6. Re:The dumbest thing by MrLint · · Score: 1

      The functions written in software is not a 'society facing' item. I would really like to see this misogyny is everywhere groupthink to stop.

    7. Re:The dumbest thing by reactor451 · · Score: 1

      Jonathan wasn't calling for people to stop attempting to learn. He was calling for IT professionals to be judged based on the merits of their work, not their gender.

      Under representation of women and minorities in IT is worth looking into from a purely HR perspective. We could be loosing out on some talented people from those groups. However performing the Bechdel Test on an organization isn't going to help us figure out why women and minorities are underrepresented.

      Also measuring this sort of thing on the company level isn't very helpful either. In small organizations randomness in the hiring process is going to determine the gender make up of a company more than equitable hiring practices. So some firms will be made up of mostly women and some mostly men.

    8. Re:The dumbest thing by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, this is the dumbest thing ever. Just make the code work. I don't care at all if women wrote it. There are so many issues that actually matter, and this isn't one of them.

      Moreover, it's probably sexist. We have established that there is a gender imbalance issue in the workplace. If the requirement is that two women are in close collusion on the project, that's statistically less likely than two men (which may number 5:1 in some fields, including mine). The mathematical proof is left to the reader, but select 2 from N where N is a collection of one of three genders with a skewed distribution: Male, Female & No Interaction where No Interaction defines tasks that are purely self-contained and represents the greatest part of the distribution. The way to pass this test then is to force your women to work together and isolate them, functionally, from the men. The odds of those two interacting increases dramatically (but as much of our work is solitary, it's not a definite). To get definite interaction you need to have a woman work on the user facing portions of the code (i.e. "outside" the engine) and another who is a user. Either way this doesn't strike me as good for anybody, and certainly doesn't seem very equal opportunity/diverse/ideal or even rational.

      It has to be much, much worse on the kinds of software projects I see a lot these days. Someone buys/acquires some code written elsewhere by persons gender unknown but almost certainly male (more so as the software approaches the OS/hardware level). You can have an entire company of women tying their code into this codebase and they may never write a function for each other, each tackling this big hairball independently for her own module. They may not have cause to interact, and your all-woman company fails the test.

      Bad idea. In any event I don't think it solves any issues I see affecting women in the workplace in a helpful way, it just seems to be more distracting data-points leading away from the cause of the actual problem that should be examined.

    9. Re:The dumbest thing by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Really, who could blame women for NOT wanting to be in a profession populated by typical male programmers?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re: The dumbest thing by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      It's not about "not talking about men/women at all," it's "having at least one conversation that isn't about men."

      The point of the test is to say "are there women who exist outside of props for the men?"

      How many movies fail the dude bechdel test? How many fail the regular one?

    11. Re:The dumbest thing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even if programming was a perfect meritocracy that ignores the two main reasons why there are so few female programmers in the workforce.

      1. A lot of hiring is done through networking, and because the guys in the industry tend to network with other guys it limits the number of female candidates available to them. It's bad for the company as they don't get to pick from the widest possible pool of talent, but it's cheap and easy so it happens a lot.

      2. When the work culture is framing any effort to even examine the topic as "a man vs. women content" it feels quite hostile. I'm male and I wouldn't want to work in a place where even discussing gender issues is seen as some kind of attempt to make it a competition of the sexes, rather than just a simple attempt to be fair and build an egalitarian and highly functional environment. It says that the company prefers to go on excluding many of the best developers just because even talking about gender makes them uncomfortable and leap to assumptions about it being some kind of movement against men.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:The dumbest thing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Semicolon!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:The dumbest thing by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Brokeback mountain was not a better movie by any standard despite being love interests.

    14. Re:The dumbest thing by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      We have established that there is a gender imbalance issue in the workplace.

      Are you sure of that? What exactly to we mean by a "balanced" gender mix? The same ratio as found in well-qualified programmers world-wide? Or the same ratio as found in the well-qualified applicants? Or the same ration as in CS graduates from appropriate-tier schools? Or the same ratio as found in well-qualified programmers within a reasonable commute?

    15. Re:The dumbest thing by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      And that's the thing... Egalitarian and fair are neither when one group has been systematically discouraged for (well, forever).

      You actually need to go with stats then to redress the issue. And the stats don't actually lie (much).

      You don't like their stats? Get your own. Figure out how many % of women are actually interested in programming vs. anecdotal evidence that "women don't want to do STEM" or "networking is biased". There are other places where you could gather appropriate statistics and bolster your case. However, whining about fair, when (as we all know) the world isn't fair, is still just whining.

      Show how they are wrong with numbers. And then show how the world is (somehow) unfair to you and work to make it better for you. That is what these women are doing.

      It basically shows that they're better tactical thinkers than you, because they're fighting on the ground, not up in ivory towers whining about "egalitarian" and "fair". They're better strategic thinkers than you because they will end up winning and redefining egalitarianism and fairness while you're still whining about ideals. I'm with Chairman Mao on this one - power flows through the barrel of a gun. They're fighting -you're whining.

      --
      That is all.
    16. Re:The dumbest thing by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares if a programmer is a man or a woman if they can write good code.

      You sure about that? Remember, we live on planet earth.

    17. Re:The dumbest thing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Those aren't the reasons. If #1 were the reason, then you would find that colleges had high levels of women enrolling in computer science, and then couldn't find jobs after graduation. However, that is not the case: women are not entering computer science classes at all. So you have to look at something earlier.

      #2 is not true either.....if 'egalitarian and highly functional environment' were required to attract women, then fewer women would work in the medical industry than in the computer industry. So you need to look elsewhere for reasons.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:The dumbest thing by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      I can show one thing: the first computer software written would have failed this test.

      That's because it was all written by Ada Lovelace.

      Bletchley Park would have been an anomaly at the start of the digital computing era; almost all the coders were women. Of course, they weren't doing function-based programming for the most part.

      The truth is, male-bias in computing didn't happen until sometime in the 80's, which is really pretty recent. This test would actually be useful to apply retrospectively to historical code more than it is useful to apply to current/future code.

    19. Re:The dumbest thing by Livius · · Score: 1

      We have established that there is a gender imbalance issue in the workplace.

      We have established that there is a gender imbalance. Whether or not it is an issue is undecided at this time.

    20. Re: The dumbest thing by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It's not about "not talking about men/women at all," it's "having at least one conversation that isn't about men."

      The point of the test is to say "are there women who exist outside of props for the men?"

      How many movies fail the dude bechdel test? How many fail the regular one?

      All of the chick flicks fail the regular one.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  4. I should set up a script... by seepho · · Score: 2

    That automatically comments on Nerval's submissions asking why no one mentions that Dice is /.'s parent company.

  5. Wow...way too much time on their hands. by xTantrum · · Score: 1

    jesus christ this is retarded! really?

    --
    $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    1. Re:Wow...way too much time on their hands. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the new /. where sjw shit has become the norm. And people wonder why there's a giant cultural backlash brewing.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  6. discussion by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    both startups and larger companies could find the modified Bechdel Test a useful tool for opening up a discussion about gender balance within engineering and development teams.

    And what exactly is it you want to "discuss"? Are you entering this "discussion" being open to the idea that your ideas about "gender balance" are wrong? Or are you just trying to hit other people over the head with your particular views?

    1. Re:discussion by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Stupid metrics are bad because they can be gamed. This is a stupid metric.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:discussion by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 2

      Any industry which does not appeal to ~half of its prospective workers might want to spend a bit of time trying to figure out why,

      You mean like receptionists, secretaries, nurses, day care attendants, elementary school teachers, and cosmetologists?

      instead of getting all defensive and blaming everyone and everything else for the issue.

      "Defensiveness" and "blame" imply that there is anything wrong. I don't believe there is anything wrong.

      Here's a question: Would you enter such a discussion open to the idea that you are wrong?

      Wrong about what?

      What if someone showed you concrete evidence of, say, widespread institutionalised misogyny - would you accept it?

      If there were "institutionalised misogyny" at my company, it would be something for our management to think about, and it would be up to them whether to do anything about it or not. If they want to run an all-lesbian development team, I'm happy to leave and find another job.

    3. Re:discussion by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      H1B applicants will discuss anything you wish, and they're all gender balanced. Just ask them!

    4. Re:discussion by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Hey, if I say there's misogyny you better accept it mister!

    5. Re:discussion by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Misogyny lives in the thoughts of people.

      The only concrete evidence is when people confess to misogyny (and even then we could ask if they aren't trying to get attention or some other motive).

      As far as metrics go, people apply for developer work at my job with things like, "Hey! I'm 27 years old! So I'm a good programmer!". Metrics are superficial and a way to distract from what is really going on. Example: the trains in the USSR always arrived on time (pay no attention to the 4-6 million people who starved to death in the Ukraine because they didn't have the most "correct" political views).

    6. Re:discussion by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      I thought misogyny was rather funny.

    7. Re:discussion by alvinrod · · Score: 1
      It's a terrible metric. The test would pass if a female developer wrote a simple function and other female developer called it somewhere else. The function need not even do anything at all or be in anyway important to the project. The simple function and the call to it may be the only code contributed to the project by those individuals.

      Do we get to feel good about our project and pat ourselves on the back for being progressive after passing this test even though it's utterly meaningless?

      Any industry which does not appeal to ~half of its prospective workers might want to spend a bit of time trying to figure out why, instead of getting all defensive and blaming everyone and everything else for the issue.

      Why? The logging industry isn't likely losing any sleep over the lack of female lumberjacks and I doubt the child daycare industry cares one iota about the lack of male workers. No one seems to be jumping on their backs about any kind of sex-based disparity and trying to shove inane tests like the above down everyone's throat is going to do more harm than good because it just serves to alienate people.

      Men and women are inherently different in some aspects and have different interests. That practically guarantees that there are certain jobs, activities, etc. that are going to appeal to one group more than the other. Unless we have a case of blatant (i.e. no women allowed) discrimination, there's no reason to expect that everything will have a perfect 50-50 balance.

    8. Re:discussion by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Any industry which does not appeal to ~half of its prospective workers might want to spend a bit of time trying to figure out why, instead of getting all defensive and blaming everyone and everything else for the issue.

      I would bet that the waste management industry does not appeal to a much larger fraction than half of the potential workers. Should they try to figure out why?

      Personally, I would get very tired of my local garbage company trying to entice me into becoming one of the few, the proud, the Garbagemen.

    9. Re:discussion by Ionized · · Score: 1

      It's a terrible metric. The test would pass if a female developer wrote a simple function and other female developer called it somewhere else. The function need not even do anything at all or be in anyway important to the project. The simple function and the call to it may be the only code contributed to the project by those individuals.

      Do we get to feel good about our project and pat ourselves on the back for being progressive after passing this test even though it's utterly meaningless?

      no, you should feel like an asshat for trying to game the system, and missing the entire fucking point. it's not a test in the sense of, 'oh you passed the test, move on to round two'. it's more of a tool for self-reflection. it's a way to see if your company/project/whatever is anywhere near gender equality.

      Any industry which does not appeal to ~half of its prospective workers might want to spend a bit of time trying to figure out why, instead of getting all defensive and blaming everyone and everything else for the issue.

      Why? The logging industry isn't likely losing any sleep over the lack of female lumberjacks and I doubt the child daycare industry cares one iota about the lack of male workers. No one seems to be jumping on their backs about any kind of sex-based disparity and trying to shove inane tests like the above down everyone's throat is going to do more harm than good because it just serves to alienate people.

      neither the logging industry nor the child care industry are particularly prestigious, well-paying, or difficult to break into. aka, nobody cares about those fields, they just aren't important enough to worry about, when there are more important conversations to be having.

    10. Re:discussion by clifwlkr · · Score: 1

      I actually like this. I think we should consider the logging industry a failure unless we have a tree that is cut down by a female logger, that is then processed into a 2x4 by a female saw mill worker. Then maybe take it that one step further into having it placed into a house by a female carpenter.
      This game is fun! (serious sarcasm).

    11. Re:discussion by itzly · · Score: 1

      neither the logging industry nor the child care industry are particularly prestigious, well-paying, or difficult to break into. aka, nobody cares about those fields, they just aren't important enough to worry about, when there are more important conversations to be having.

      Professional baseball (or soccer in the rest of the world) is a prestigious, well-paying job. Why aren't people complaining that there are no women playing there ?

    12. Re:discussion by Ionized · · Score: 1

      sure, i'll play along, even though you already know the answer to your own question.

      I don't think anyone would argue that men and women are physically equivalent. men are, on average, bigger and stronger. so men and women have different leagues.

      so that's your argument - programming is analogous to sports, that women are inferior coders? because their brains aren't as strong as men's brains?

    13. Re:discussion by itzly · · Score: 2

      so that's your argument - programming is analogous to sports, that women are inferior coders?

      Pretty much, yes.

      because their brains aren't as strong as men's brains?

      'Strong' is the wrong adjective. I would say that male and female brains are optimized for different functions, just as their bodies are. But for some reason, it's okay to talk about the different optimization in the physical body, whereas it is a taboo to discuss differences in the brain.

    14. Re:discussion by Ionized · · Score: 1

      yep! those greedy women, asking for equal pay and equal opportunities. so ENVIOUS and GREEDY of them!

    15. Re:discussion by itzly · · Score: 1

      If women are willing to do the same work for less money, you'd think that employers would be very interested in hiring them, and save a bunch of money.

    16. Re:discussion by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should just stop wanting to have it all. http://www.consad.com/content/...

    17. Re:discussion by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Baseball specifically I'm not so sure about, but there's plenty of "women's" versions of other sports -- basketball, hockey, soccer, rugby, etc.

      I don't know that its really helping equality all that much given that the women's leagues tend to get little to no air time or media support, but its certainly better than nothing and coed versions of most sports could would almost certainly lead to all sorts of sexual harassment troubles.

      And yes, people complain all the time about the lack of women in high-visibility sports.. its just often overlooked or outright ignored because sports viewers are also mostly male.

      Its sort of the same reason why nobody really takes issue with the gigantic hulking men in comic books -- not because that isn't just as stupid a stereotype as the petite heroine with GGG breasts, but because its a stereotype that's geared towards the audience its stereotyping and so who's really going to complain?

    18. Re:discussion by Altrag · · Score: 1

      There's some research that men have a slight advantage in math skills.. but its very slight and even that is disputed.

      But even if it exists, its certainly nowhere near the level needed to justify the M/F ratio in science and engineering fields.. not to mention the fact that pretty much everything in those fields requires plenty of skills outside of pure math that women have been shown to be equal or possibly (again very slightly) better at.

      That said, you're technically correct -- our brains do differ slightly in terms of hormone production and whatnot. But as far as anyone's been able to tell, there is very little to no difference in terms of what we typically define as intelligence.

    19. Re:discussion by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the old "sexism doesn't exist because free market" argument. Judging people's ability based on their gender rather than their ability isn't rational, so why on earth do you expect people to behave rationally about it?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re:discussion by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Here's a question: Would you enter such a discussion open to the idea that you are wrong? What if someone showed you concrete evidence of, say, widespread institutionalised misogyny - would you accept it?

      Well, all the activists have yet to produce any evidence for me to accept - you can't very well ask me to accept that there is institutionalised misogyny without providing any evidence; after all, you are the one making the claim so you are the one who should be bringing the evidence.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  7. Bechdel test is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Bechdel test is, quite literally, a joke. It started as a joke in a cartoon, and it remains a joke because it is utterly useless as a measure for anything at all. This new test, from the description above, is no better.

    1. Re:Bechdel test is a joke by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The original test is persistent because joke or not, it proposes a very simple way to define gender balance in movies.

      This "new" test on the other hand is fairly useless because functions don't typically have a gender. In terms of the original (movie) version, this would be more along the lines of "a female screenplay author, who used at least one quote from another female screenplay author" without any further context. Screenplays don't have a gender (only the characters in them do).. quotes don't have a gender (only the character speaking the quote does.. usually.)

      I mean its not _entirely_ meaningless. Certainly the chance of one woman's function calling another woman's function goes up the more women you have building functions.. but you can do a simple head count if you just want to know how many women you've got and this new test doesn't provide any deeper insight than that.

  8. This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Bechdel Test is about female characters. It depends on the story taking their characters and lives seriously.
    This stupid thing is nothing like that. It totally trivializes the real gender inequalities that still exist.
    Code has no gender.

    1. Re:This is stupid by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      It's also sort of funny just how strongly the idea of the Bechdel Test has taken hold, even to the point that the underlying idea has been somewhat lost. It made a point of how unusual it was for movies to treat women as independent characters, rather than as attachments or ornaments to the male characters. It's not a perfect test though - for instance, the last James Bond movie passes the Bechdel test, yet is probably far and away from what anyone would consider remotely feminist, that one scene aside.

      Now, as for this proposed test, I would suggest that the problems of gender disparity are already known, and something like this isn't going to significantly improve anything. It would likely lead to companies gaming the system, making sure they had exactly enough to pass the "test", so they could slap the seal on their product. Worse, it would divert resources and attention from the real problems, which lie in various points along the educational pipeline and career, nevermind the attitudes that it would create on the programming teams - "Oh, she's just here for Bechdel compliance."

      Bottom line, if we want more women in tech, we need to focus on encouraging more women in tech, not by establishing silly metrics to highlight something that is already a well known condition.

    2. Re:This is stupid by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Its taken hold because its simple, easy to understand for a layperson, and is surprisingly (or sadly) effective.

      I would say a passing Bond movie is exactly why the Bechdel test is genius -- it indicates that, at least in some small way, even a "guy movie" give the female characters some independence and thoughts of their own.

      It might not be much, but its something (assuming that the scene had a purpose in its own right and wasn't just tacked on specifically to game the Bechdel test.) Even a small step in the right direction is still in the right direction.

  9. Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It isn't about getting jobs for female actors.

    It's about people misrepresenting the world as lacking interesting women with something on their mind besides men.

    If all you do is insist on two functions, each written by another women calling each other, you have made a mochery of the test.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and misrepresent the world I say.

      It doesn't care.

      To say life is improved by something related to a quantity of maleness or femaleness is to misrepresent life entirely.

    2. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by N1AK · · Score: 1

      This point can't be made often enough. We're already seeing any meaningful discussion drowned out by claims even checking for sexism is sexist, that they should have something better to do etc, and they're hiding an underlying issue.

      Checking whether two functions coded by different women interact is a really poor proxy for the lack of gender issues at a firm. It would comically easy to game, and I can't see what it offers that simply looking at the proportion of women employed in coding roles doesn't do better.

    3. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I have yet to meet a woman who doesn't love to talk about relationships with other women. Hers, her friends, a celebrity, whatever. It's by far the most popular subject. And while men may not talk about relationships per se, we do talk about women. A lot. In fact, there's a convincing argument to be made that everything we do is in the pursuit of securing or keeping a mate, so it's not so strange that we would talk about it, male or female. (Replace opposite sex with same sex as applicable -- this is not a hetrosexual phenomenon.)

      Cartoonists are good at getting a laugh (hopefully), and on the surface this is something that people may not have noticed before it was pointed out, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. It's funny that we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway, but do we need to resolve that by rewriting our dictionaries? Probably not.

      The insulting thing about the "Bechtel test" is actually that it diminishes the importance of these conversations. There is certainly a place for women in all areas of society, but insulting what many find to be the most important to them is not the way to encourage that. You don't have to shit on the volunteer fire department to encourage people to feed the homeless. We can applaud some portrayals without mocking others.

    4. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Exactly. The Bechdel test is about the broader misrepresentation of women in media more so than it is about gender imbalance. It makes little sense to apply it in a work environment, simply because we're already dealing with reality there, meaning that women can represent themselves how they choose.

      The project I'm currently on has two full-time employees working on it, both male. We routinely call functions written by one of the original devs on the project who was a woman and was responsible for much of the core of the architecture. Despite that, our project would fail the test, since she was the only female dev on the project, meaning she never called another female's code.

      A different project across the hall has two women working on it. Neither of them were there when the underlying framework was written by a male, and they each handle their own vertical slice of the app. Even though we'd credit them with being the ones most responsible for the success of the app, their project still fails the test, simply because they haven't called each other's code.

      Two other small projects each have just one developer. One of them has a male developer, and the other has a female developer. Both fail the test for obvious reasons.

      Four project lifecycles, four women and four men, all working harmoniously in a cooperative and successful business environment, yet all four projects fail the test.

      Moreover, the vast majority of projects are in the long tail of projects that have very small development teams, and the test falls flat in dealing with them, since even if we assumed that half of software developers were women, the test would fail 50% of the time for projects with three people, 75% of the time for projects with two people, and 100% of the time for projects staffed by a lone developer.

      Between that and the examples above, we have some good indications it's a bad test.

    5. Re: Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by Fwipp · · Score: 2

      The room passes, they talk about Claudette's breast cancer.

    6. Re: Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Again, the test only requires a singular conversation that's not about men. They can talk about men for the other 90% of the movie if they want.

    7. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Hummm...
      I have to wonder about this concept. Take the TV series Sex in the City. The viewership was in large women but just about the only thing they talked about was men.
      Relationships are important to both men and women but women seem to discuss it more.
      My workplace is really diverse and no one really cares what your gender or race is as long as you can get it done.
       

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I have yet to meet a woman who doesn't love to talk about relationships with other women.

      I have met many. I've also met women who would prefer to talk about physics rather than celebrities. And many men that don't talk about other women as though it was their favorite hobby.

      I agree, insulting what they MIGHT find to be important to them is bad (you left out "might" so I FTFY .. ;) ). And making sure that they are accepted even if they are interested in "tomboy" things is important, too... in other words, we shouldn't call them tomboys for liking things that are more commonly liked by men.

      But, we do. Having a daughter, now - even as young as she is, under a year old - I'm very aware of how different things get interpreted based on whether a boy or girl does it. If our daughter "talks" (baby talk) a lot, it's because she's a girl. If a boy "talks" a lot, it's strage. If a "girl" likes building things or running around outside when they're older, they are a "tomboy." If a boy likes staying inside reading and cooking, well that's a bit odd - why isn't he outside pretending to beat up bandits? etc...

      And at such a young, impressionable age ... you think perhaps what they learn is the "accepted behavior" during their first 5 years of life might carry through for quite a while, and be hard to fix? On both sides, too; not just women deciding they want to go into physics, but men deciding that they are capable. And that it shouldn't be weird.

    9. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Agreed, "might."

      For what it's worth, I never encouraged my daughter to pursue stereotypically female toys or activities. She seemed to prefer them either innately, or perhaps because her friends did. I did manage to get her interested in gaming though, although I'm supportive of whatever she finds fulfilling.

    10. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree it's hard to tell if it's what they actually like or if it's "conforming." And conforming isn't always bad, I suppose. Seems societies cycle from wanting to conform to everything to wanting to be non-conforming to everything, ha. :)

      That said, I know women (e.g., my wife) who don't like the "girly stereotype" for a variety of reasons (like the annoying useless small talk that neither of us are good at), but do like what is stereotyped as "girly" - flowers, pink, cute things, dresses, etc.

      I guess... people are complex, we have lots of varying interests, and the "pink vs. blue"/"girl vs. boy" interests stuff is often just silly and such a vast over-generalization, and yet seems to be very prevalent. Cynicism coming out here: it does make a lot of money for retailers of "his and her" sorts of stuff, though.

      I have to say that in my particular large, very distributed and varied corporate tech workplace, I've not really encounterd any sexism nor racism.

    11. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by Altrag · · Score: 1

      You're mixing up your existential operators.

      The test isn't whether all conversations between two women revolve around something other than men. Its whether any conversation does. Only needs one to pass. The whole rest of the movie can be male-centric. But at least one scene has to show women being focused on something other than a man.

      Yes, real girls talk about boys a lot and real boys talk about girls a lot. Probably even more than in movies. But in both cases, we also talk about work and food and whatever else as well.

      And that's the catch -- in many movies, that "work and food and whatever else" bit is skipped over when it comes to conversations between women.

    12. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I have yet to meet a woman who doesn't love to talk about relationships with other women.

      Shame. Sound like you know only pretty boring women.

      And while men may not talk about relationships per se, we do talk about women. A lot.

      And men too!

      Those conversations have their place, but if you spend most of your time on either of them it's dull, dull, dull.

      In fact, there's a convincing argument to be made that everything we do is in the pursuit of securing or keeping a mate,

      If there is such an argument, I've not seen it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    13. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      And at such a young, impressionable age ... you think perhaps what they learn is the "accepted behavior" during their first 5 years of life might carry through for quite a while, and be hard to fix?

      You seem to be implying that it is all learned. You know, experiments with male and female monkeys show the different genders preferring different activities on average. It is not all learned, it is /mostly/ (but not all) hardwired.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    14. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I have yet to meet a woman who doesn't love to talk about relationships with other women.

      Shame. Sound like you know only pretty boring women.

      And while men may not talk about relationships per se, we do talk about women. A lot.

      And men too!

      Those conversations have their place, but if you spend most of your time on either of them it's dull, dull, dull.

      In fact, there's a convincing argument to be made that everything we do is in the pursuit of securing or keeping a mate,

      If there is such an argument, I've not seen it.

      You need to read more research papers by real scientists and not sociology grads. Start with this - a talk given by a real scientist who did actual peer-reviewed double-blind controlled studies for decades. I'll take his conclusions over your skepticism; most ofwhat we do is driven by instincts honed by evolution over thousands of years. Those who did things differently didn't have any progeny and so their instincts aren't around anymore.

      So, now you've seen the argument, peer-reviewed and backed by controlled studies, supported by the most respected academics in the field. You are not going to be able to say "I've not seen that argument before" when you see this argument again.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well, that's agiant wall o' text for a wednesday morning. Working through it:

      Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also donâ(TM)t give them the big rewards. Iâ(TM)m not saying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures arenâ(TM)t moral beings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competition against other systems and other groups.

      I don't agree with that and there's nothing to back it up. Cultures aren't exactly conscious. The culture doesn't observe competing cultures, think, and come up with a competing strategy.

      Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.

      While he is indeed correct that it could be a statistical fluke of a flatter distribution and a threshold, there's also evidence of systematic bias, for example that PNAS paper which keeps coming up where purely invented CVs got different ratings of competence and salary offers based on the gender of the fake applicant.

      The thing is, that's something where it is possible to make a controlled trial, someone did in a limited area and it gave a result which is more concrete than simply listing possibilities.

      Right now our field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained by evolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explains things related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of natural selection

      Well, that's just out-and-out crap. Reproducing sure is at the heart of natural selection, but there are several equally important prerequisites (e.g. staying alive) because without those reproduction is simply impossible. Plenty of animals seem to have gentically fixed hunting instincts. That's evolution affected behaviour (as if any isn't!) devoted to survival not reproduction.

      Itâ(TM)s like the common question, whatâ(TM)s more important to you, having a few close friendships or having lots of people who know you? Most people say the former is more important. But the large network of shallow relationships might be important too. We shouldnâ(TM)t automatically see men as second-class huma

      This guy seems to have a dirsturbing lack of knowledge of history. If you go back a couple of centuries, very intense platonic relationships between men were not rare. Thankfully then people wrote letters and those have been preserved and frankly with some you might even confuse them for love letters. More recently, society pushed men away from that because of the fear of "gay". A change over the course of 150 years is not explicable by evolution.

      Eh, I'm kind of getting fed up with reading the whole thing, since it's full of holes and some things which are just plain off the wall. If you have a specific argument, then post it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Like I said, this prof is a great deal more respected and a good deal more well-read in the field than the authors of the PNAS paper. You are also making the supposition that he doesn't know about that paper, but in fact in a recent paper he goes so far as to cite it.

      You are pitting recent findings from a small, limited, non-blind and uncontrolled study against this professor AND his peers' decades of peer-reviewed, blind and controlled studies. It is way too soon to invoke as-yet-to-be-determined factors as an explanation over existing explanations that have been the results of decades of study and research.

      The PNAS study shows one thing for certain - bias in this particular field did not lead to the female under-representation at the level we see in information technology fields. The PNAS study serves as a good control for future studies of this sort, but in no way does it actually present any conclusions due to the lack of a control itself.

      Many of "problems" that are being highlighted by sociology studies are due to the current crop of unemployable sociologists not having sufficient training in critical reasoning and/or statistics.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    17. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Like I said, this prof is a great deal more respected and a good deal more well-read in the field than the authors of the PNAS paper.

      So? The author there simply lists plausible alternatives. The PNAS paper actually does an investigation to test one of the alternatives. Actual experiments are more revealing of reality that pontificating. Figuring out alternatives is important, but only experiements will tell you if they actually mean anything.

      You are also making the supposition that he doesn't know about that paper, but in fact in a recent paper he goes so far as to cite it.

      Well, he didn't in the link you gave.

      You are pitting recent findings from a small, limited, non-blind and uncontrolled study against this professor

      It was blind and controlled: the participants were unaware of the actual gender of the applicant.

      AND his peers' decades of peer-reviewed, blind and controlled studies.

      Such as?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:Someone doesn't undestand the Bechtel test. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply it was all learned... though I was actually refering more to what is considered "acceptable behavior" vs. what they are actually interested in. e.g., learning that flowers are okay to like as a girl but not as a boy, or that building stuff is a boy thing and not a girl thing.

      That said, I agree that people are inherently and intrinsically different, not simply products of society/social pressures/whatever. But views of what is "normal" behavior for a girl or boy certainly is something that is significantly learned from surroundings/society, isn't it? And that can certainly serve to form or at least encourage development or non-development of interests. If I thought programming was something that "real boys" don't do, I might not have been so inclined to do it, even though I was inherently interested in it.

      There are lots of different good responses to this ... based on what the relationship of the one responding is - parents, schools, peers, friends, society, government, etc. My response as a parent will be different than what I want society, friends, schools, or the government to do. e.g., I would like society to accept female engineers just as readily as male engineers, but not push my daughter to be an engineer or to somehow imply that to be an empowered woman, she HAS to do things that used to be considered "man stuff." However, as a parent, I want to encourage interests and let them explore and find out what they like, get them to try things they don't want to because of various reasons (fear, social pressures, advertising, whatever it is) but let them not continue if they don't like it, etc.

      But pushing society towards equally accepting an engineer, a mother, a secretary, and an athlete as a "real woman" is important, I think. It seems similar to pushing society to accept a both blacks and whites as equally human. Yes, I can deal with that as a parent, but I think we should deal with it as a society, too.

  10. What are they trying to show? by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Beschdel test is based on the idea that many writers will create female characters not as actual characters but as a love interest. Hence the qualifiers. It's not a perfect test but you can at least see how it is likely to correlate to a specific type of poorly written character.

    So what ae they testing for here? Are they saying that female developers are just macguffins?

    1. Re:What are they trying to show? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The Beschdel test is based on the idea that many writers will create female characters not as actual characters but as a love interest.

      I'll bite; why is a love interest not an actual character?

    2. Re:What are they trying to show? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I probably could have put that better. You absolutely can have a romantic interest as a fully developed character. It's one of the problems with the test.

      But there are movies where the only thing that the female character is for is as motivation. The character could be replaced by a favourite pet or even an inanimate object that the protagonist happens to value, with minimal changes. Willie Scott from Temple of Doom could have been replaced by Indy's hat without affecting the plot!

    3. Re:What are they trying to show? by BetterThanCaesar · · Score: 1

      I'll bite; why is a love interest not an actual character?

      It's not an actual character if it's the ONLY character that women get to play.

      If you apply both the Bechdel test and the "gender reversed Bechdel test" to movies, you will see that this is more than a curiosity. The results are overwhelming. If you're a male actor, you get to play someone who has conversations with other male characters about lots of topics. If you're a female actor, you get to play the love interest, whose only conversations with other women is about men. The result is that women are portrayed as being only there for (the pleasure of) men.

      The results will vary depending on which films you count. Independent films are perhaps (but not necessarily) better than mainstream blockbusters, but far fewer people see them, so they have a much lower impact anyway.

      --
      "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
  11. superficial by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    How does passing this test make the show better?

    What does having a bare minimum of female interaction teach me about life or being a person?

    Will I look back on my life and consider it a success if I watched these shows?

    1. Re:superficial by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Will I look back on my life and consider it a success if I watched these shows?

      No, but you're spending your time on /. attacking an innocuous measure of how seriously female characters are taken in film so I imagine this is way down on the list of things you'll have to deal with to be able to say yes.

    2. Re: superficial by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Well, you know, as a woman sometimes it's nice to get a character that cares about something besides swooning for the male lead.

    3. Re: superficial by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So we need more "Aliens" (the first and second, the rest were kind of blah). And a female Blade Runner in the next movie would be nice as well. I think both sexes would be on board for that.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re: superficial by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      That'd be rad.

    5. Re:superficial by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      My intent is to attack the emphasis on superficiality.

      And, yes, I intend to find some pre-mortem satisfaction in that.

      Seriously, we should stop caring about the male/female thing and start caring about people being people.

    6. Re:superficial by Altrag · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. Its got exactly nothing to do with how good a show is. The test is about how women characters are represented and nothing else. And its results are intended to showcase the misogyny in Hollywood and what that reflects on society as a whole. Its not a critical review.

      You can have a completely crap show that passes the test with flying colors and you can have the most amazing movie in the world that fails it.

      Asking whether the test relates to how good a movie is is like asking how color relates to the speed of a car. After all, most beige cars are boring family vehicles while most bright yellow cars are fast sports cars. Does that mean I can paint my Ford Focus bright yellow and have a faster car? No.

      Likewise, passing the Bechdel test may in some ways correlate to better movies, but its a weak correlation at best and just adding a Bechdel-passing scene to an otherwise shit movie is still going to leave you with a shit movie (probably a shittier movie -- forcing in a scene that shouldn't be there is almost never going to make a movie better.)

    7. Re: superficial by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I thought about your comment for a while.

      I concede the character you describe is common and a burden on the audience. Romantic comedies have the same defect (male characters swooning for the female lead).

      But this is just a symptom of plot-driven content. Plot-driven content is a symptom of pursuing ratings breadth instead of depth. The main solution is to jettison all this emphasis on vanity and superficiality.

    8. Re:superficial by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Well, if the movie isn't better than this is a waste of my time as a potential viewer and the production budget.

  12. 18F is not a tech firm - it's the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    18F is not a tech firm. It's a technology program at the General Services Administration of the Federal Government. https://18f.gsa.gov/

    1. Re:18F is not a tech firm - it's the government by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I thought "18F" was the string that precedes "/New York".

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  13. Barf by varargs · · Score: 1

    Christ, I am getting bile in my mouth regularly these days reading all this fluffy PC crap.

  14. Wow... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    And I thought it couldn't get any more useless and idiotic than the original Bechdel test!

    Learning something new every day!

  15. Artificial and arbitrary to the extreme by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    So some CTO decides to take a visual arts litmus test which admittedly does not work, modify it in arbitrary ways, and then apply it to the software engineering field to determine whether or not a project will fail.

    .
    I have to agree with the previous poster who said, "Seriously, this is the dumbest thing ever. Just make the code work."

    1. Re:Artificial and arbitrary to the extreme by seepho · · Score: 1

      Thankfully all of my code passes the seepho test, so I have an equally arbitrary metric to send up the management chain.

  16. My reaction by arielCo · · Score: 1
    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  17. Unexamined privilege escalation by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

    Here's how foolish this nonsense is. Assume we have two classes, Woman, and Kitchen, which are written by different women. Passing the Bechdel test:

    self.sandwich = [woman getSandwichFromKitchen:kitchen];

    I learned something about myself writing that. Objective C really is as shitty as Java. I should stop oppressing Java programmers.

  18. This test is impossible and pointless. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    On my team, there are as many Y chromosomes as X chromosomes. It's impossible to pass this test. In my almost 30 years of writing software, The only time there was more than 1 woman on my team was a year during the dotcom boom. Otherwise, if there is a woman, she's the only one. I didn't need this test to know that.

    You don't need to come up with circuitous gimmicks to prove that there aren't a lot of women in tech. We know it. Everyone who has worked in this field knows it. Society knows it. The unknown here is why? can you come up with something that demonstrates brogrammer culture is scaring them off? can you show that kindergarten teachers discourage girls from interest in computers? can you show that hormones make women afraid of logic? can you come up with a test that shows that HR departments throw women's resumes in the trash so i never see them?

    1. Re: This test is impossible and pointless. by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should fix your team, then.

    2. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If there are "as many Y chromosomes as X chromosomes", your team is all male (XY)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Or there are a couple of genetic anomalies :)

      Hey, 47,XYY syndrome and 48,XYYY syndromes exist (and even 49,XYYYY).

    4. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      yes. and it's not by any choice of ours. we haven't seen a woman candidate in years. I have no idea why. We aren't misogynistic brogrammers. We just want good engineers regardless of chromosomes or gender identity.

    5. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My god, the irony. Good to see your back to being a dude, dude.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      yes. and it's not by any choice of ours. we haven't seen a woman candidate in years. I have no idea why.

      Have you tried to figure out why that is, or is it not a focus?

    7. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      I work on a team of 10 people. my understanding is that about 15% of the entire software workforce is women. given those numbers, it is unsurprising to me that a random sampling of 10 software engineers will contain no women.

      I can't find statistics that claim the percentage of unemployed software engineers who are women is any greater than 15%. So I assume that I don't have women on my team because there just aren't a lot of them in my industry.

      I'm not dismissing this as a non issue. I do think that we should have a higher percentage of women in the industry. There is something weird going on. I feel like that's the thing for sociologists to be working out though. I'm just a software engineer. who want's women to know that the reason my code doesn't pass this test is not because my team is actively trying to keep you out.

    8. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Qui, moi? Never going back :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I'm never going back, and there are plenty of reasons. First off, some things cannot be reversed, so that's a non-starter. Second, it's the right thing for me. Sure, there's the "loss of male privilege" (which I really don't miss), but there are "compensations." Third, I can see both sides of questions like this.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re: This test is impossible and pointless. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should fix your team, then.

      He didn't say that his team was broken. He said it fails the test. Failing the test is no indication of a broken team. What would be interesting is comparing the performance of projects that pass the test and projects that fail the test.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    11. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's the "loss of male privilege" (which I really don't miss),

      Have you considered that you may not be missing the loss of male privilege because, on average, there wasn't that much to start with?

      Yes yes, we have had our contentious discussions in the past but we tend to agree at least 50% of the time. Or maybe 25%. Well, sometimes :-), so I'm asking you to carefully step back and consider all the doors that were open to you before because you were male that are now closed to you because you are female. You are in a unique position to actually list those privileges (that you actually don't miss or care about) that you, personally, had before that you personally, do not have now.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    12. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I work on a team of 10 people. my understanding is that about 15% of the entire software workforce is women. given those numbers, it is unsurprising to me that a random sampling of 10 software engineers will contain no women.

      Sure, but your earlier comment was that you haven't even seen a woman candidate in years. Unless you've also never seen any male candidates and have maintained the same team through that period, than that random sampling should be much more than 10. And depending on how many resumes you've received and interviews conducted, seeing no women candidates could start looking very strange statistically.

      So, industry-wide, sure, it's a thing for sociologists and educators. But your team personally? Maybe there's something you've missed in your position advertising that convinces women never to apply.

    13. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Gee, where DOES one start? In meetings, my opinion is not solicited nearly as much as a woman, and when it is, it doesn't have nearly as much weight. That's very frustrating, especially when I'm the one with the most experience. This is a common situation for us.

      And then there's the jokes. As a guy, you're supposed to, if not contribute to them, at least not rain on the party. Going along so that nobody finds out my "secret" made me feel like a traitor to who I really was. Trying to rein the guys in never gets much of a result, even when other women were so upset that they moved their desk over to my section just to physically get away from the worst of it. Now, I can name and shame such behavior, but unfortunately it's wrongfully "understood" by the men that it's okay when women aren't around, or don't speak up. Not speaking up against it is interpreted as tacit acceptance.

      On the plus side of being a woman, it was nice when I was still driving, to have men let me cut in in parking lots and traffic, and I no longer have to struggle with heavy bulky stuff (estrogen takes away a LOT of your upper body strength). And it's a lot easier to share what's going on in each other's lives with other women than with men (men sometimes get a bit creeped out about discussing "woman's stuff."), so the social interactions are much more in a spirit of openness and sharing. I know, sounds corny, but as a guy, you get the message pretty early on to hide certain emotional responses - no wonder men die of heart attacks earlier.

      Hospital visits are also so much easier, because there's almost always a few other women to talk to. The men, on the other hand, tend to isolate themselves, look at their feet, look at the floor - anything but the people around them. It's like they're playing the urinal game. And when they do speak, it's to complain about the wait times. It's sad, but I remember what that was like, and I wouldn't want to go back to that sort of "keep the world at a certain distance to show how strong you are" behavior.

      And of course, there's much less need to be defensive if I make a mistake. No need to make up a bs explanation to justify it, which guys do a LOT. Sad, really. There's much more, but maybe I'll write about it in my journal when I have more time.

      BTW, thanks for asking.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    14. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Referring to your earlier post. Do you have an equal number of X and Y chromosomes?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      well, my team is a product team within a big software company. We aren't allowed to actively pursue hires. There's red tape and stuff. We've been given the green light to hire only 2 times in the past 4 years. Our candidates are handed down from HR. I don't believe that our lack of female team members has anything to do with my team. But I DO think it is strange that I have never even seen a female candidate since joining this team.

    16. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      well, my team is a product team within a big software company. We aren't allowed to actively pursue hires. There's red tape and stuff. We've been given the green light to hire only 2 times in the past 4 years. Our candidates are handed down from HR. I don't believe that our lack of female team members has anything to do with my team. But I DO think it is strange that I have never even seen a female candidate since joining this team.

      Maybe it's an issue with HR at your company, not passing resumes of women to you.

    17. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I've never had it tested. You?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    18. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      that's something i can agree with. other teams do have female engineers, but the last company conference i went to DID make it seem like we were far short of 15% females.

    19. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Your experience suggests a good starting point for further research. Anyway, a few more questions if you do not mind them.
      1. Why do you not miss the male privileges? Do those items you listed not matter to you, or do they not matter enough to make a big deal out of it (Pick your fights, that sort of thing).
      2. Can you say anything about your general motivation and goals that you had prior to the changeover and post-change? Have your life goals changed significantly, or not at all, or something in between?
      3. Any changes in habits? (Eating, sleeping, etc).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    20. Re:This test is impossible and pointless. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I've kept this tab open so that I can better answer you.

      I don't miss much, if anything wrt male privilege. That could be just me, though - it's more comfortable to be who you are than to pretend to be something you really don't identify with all that much. Since I'm no longer programming (health issues), I don't miss all the - for want of a better word - bs that comes with it and takes all the enjoyment out of the creative process. Besides, I can get my Recommended Daily Allotment of bs right here on slashdot by reading at -1 :-)

      I know that my perspective has certainly changed - probably because I can permit myself to feel and act differently now. The rigid pretense of maintaining the fiction is gone, and ultimately that's a huge relief.

      After I transitioned, for a long time I still carried much of the previous mind-set. For example, for years I kept trying to "tough it out" when dealing with PTSD and depression. That was a really stupid mistake, and it's a relief to not to try to live up to that "I can handle this by myself" habit, because there are things I just can't fix by myself and I can now admit it more easily. Good thing too, because this last depression ended up lasting 6 months, and only started to abate a couple of weeks ago.

      My goals have had to change because of my health problems. Programming had allowed me to express my curiosity and creativity, and giving it up was not easy. Still, life remains an adventure, with plenty of opportunities to learn something new, either about the world or about myself, and to do things I hadn't had a real change to do before because I was "too busy."

      One example is a story I had been intending to write for ages. I gave the opening for it here, with names removed. I'll eventually change the real names of others to pseudonyms, for obvious reasons. Mine? No, I have no secrets, at least none that are better off shared so they can possibly help others, if only to access a different perspective.

      My life isn't typical, even for someone who is trans, so the usual warning about YMMV applies double here.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. I imagine a pair of women... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    ...could make real names for themselves by writing, respectively:

    1. code for something kinda useful
    2. a RESTful web service exposing the above

    Then every web page on Earth can pass the Programmer Bechdel Test just by consuming the web service.

    However, I suspect that's not what the test is intended to accomplish.

  20. Political Science, not Computer Science by ggraham412 · · Score: 2

    Maybe code should be written by Political Science majors from now on. It's important that the right categories take credit.

  21. Author vs. content by DrYak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This even stupider, because the original "Bechdel Test" is about the *content* of the movie.

    i.e.: the Alien movie discussed in Bechdel's comics happens to have been written and directed by guys. But none the less, it depicted strong female caracters, who actually have motivations, goals, etc. of their own.
    the female *characters* of the movie aren't passive decorations, they are not only here to observe (or obsess about) the guys, they have a life of they own, their actions are here to move the plot forward.

    counter exemple: you can probably find tons of romantic film or novels, written by author which happen to be female, but completely fail the test as their female protagonists are more or less only here for the sole purpose of falling in love with male caracters.

    This "Programmer's test" is stupid because it only considers the *author* of code.
    An author should be judged solely based on the quality of the work produced, no matter what sets of reproductive organs the author happens to be equipped with.
    What should be judged in theory, is the depiction of gender role in the produced work. As code is sexless, there is no point in that. It doesn't depict roles or creates models for future generation, in merely gives instruction to hardware.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Author vs. content by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The Bechdel test is far from perfect, but it's an interesting test to apply to movies that have no real reason not to pass it. It's supposed to make you think. It's supposed to make you question why not just women but lots of other groups often get stereotyped or sidelined in films, or why directors don't think that the more central characters can be female, or if they even considered it.

      --
      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:Author vs. content by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Everybody gets stereotyped in film. Stereotypes let the audience feel familiar with characters they don't have time to get to know. Sometimes a movie will take one or two characters and write them out of their stereotype in order to tell a story, surprise the audience, or win an Oscar.

      Longer running formats, like TV series, like to start with stereotyped characters everyone can become familiar with quickly and then do episodes that focus on their "other side."

    3. Re:Author vs. content by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The Bechdel test is far from perfect, but it's an interesting test to apply to movies that have no real reason not to pass it. It's supposed to make you think. It's supposed to make you question why not just women but lots of other groups often get stereotyped or sidelined in films, or why directors don't think that the more central characters can be female, or if they even considered it.

      A simpler method - ask why women prefer those movies that fail - almost all of the chick-flicks fail that test, yet women are the biggest demographic interested in chick-flicks.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    4. Re:Author vs. content by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They're doing project management, business analysis or testing?

  22. Just a thought... by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

    Nonetheless, both startups and larger companies could find the modified Bechdel Test a useful tool for opening up a discussion about gender balance within engineering and development teams.

    Or you could just, you know, write good code and make that the thing that matters.

  23. iNotRacist coming soon to slashdot by bhlowe · · Score: 1

    Check out iNotRacist an app to tell exactly how racist you're not.

    1. Re:iNotRacist coming soon to slashdot by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      I saw that. Gamification at its finest. So iNotSexist could potentially include "used a program that passed the Becthtel coding test" for 50 bonus points!

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  24. Re: This is why female programmers can't get a job by Fwipp · · Score: 1

    No wonder dudes refuse to see sexism, if they refuse to even look for it.

  25. This one is actually a great idea, BUT by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

    I work alone. I'm still at the point of writing boilerplate I'm very picky about, and it will take time before I'm doing anything for an end user. When I hit that point, I will probably still work alone because building a commercial product with the possibility of later pay rather than the liability of payroll isn't really the easiest thing to organize. I would LOVE to have some talented programmers on my team in times coming within the next year, but they won't be no matter what their gender is.

    HOWEVER, I have had some serious thought about opening my source from square one when the boilerplate is ready. It has so many possible applications that there will be real value in what follows it, and it's incredibly unlikely anybody would do the same things with it that I will. Suppose that following that step, programmers decide to jump on board and help with the next step too. Great! Not working alone would be nice. But I can't select their genders. I don't get to pick that.

    I like the idea of Bechdel Test for programmers, but I think it's kind of important to bear in mind that only well monied developers even have that option. My suggestion to female programmers who have trouble finding a team is to do what I'm doing. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. In my case, it's because I have an idea that I want to do the work to realize. But there are plenty of developers who freelance for other reasons.

    1. Re:This one is actually a great idea, BUT by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

      I should add an explicit statement here.

      There IS a problem with the genders being unequally represented in the software industry. But aside from sexism, there's also nepotism, cronyism, and a culture that wants developers to be overqualified. As a result, MOST programmers work for themselves, if they program at all. Many give up. So, don't expect those who are in the same boat to grow a money tree and fix things. Instead, be the new software company that will do it right.

  26. Counter-examples by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    The Flintstones, The Honeymooners, Here Comes Lucy

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Counter-examples by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The Flintstones and the Honeymooners are one example.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  27. The other way around by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    I knew a woman who complained to management when other people used code she wrote. She felt she was being denied credit for work she had done.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  28. An interesting idea, actually... by Kiyyik · · Score: 1
    (*skips over the inevitable juvenile comments, false equivalencies, and associated detritus that always show up when feminism comes up in geek spaces. I don't even see 'em anymore.) I have to say that for most of my career a lot of the software I've been involved with has been, if not passing the test, fairly close to. At every place I've worked, there have been women on my team at least part of my time there. It tends to fluctuate a bit--at the moment, there's one other on my team, and she's actually a QA (and why *do* we have so many women in QA?). So I guess our last project doesn't pass. Still, the company as a whole passes with flying colors, so that's cool. There's only a few of us, relatively speaking, but we're spread out pretty good. So our code may not intersect often but we're affecting every part of what our company does. So I think that's important too.

    In short, I think it makes for an interesting thought experiment, kind of evaluate where you and your team/department/company stand. I'm sure people will get all defensive, yell about quotas and all that jazz, but really it just asks you to think about it for a moment. Not at all unreasonable I think.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, build's done.

  29. As always, it only goes one way... by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I teach computer science. No one will be surprised to hear that most of our students are men. This is a problem, at least, we are continually told that it is.

    The news yesterday had a report on schools that train people to become small-animal veterinarians here in Switzerland. They happened to mention that 80% of the students are women. This is apparently fine; there is no outcry to find more male veterinary students.

    My son works in professional child care, where women are something like 95% of the workforce. No one seems terribly concerned by this, even though the lack of male role models for young boys is arguably an actual, genuine problem.

    Personally, I am very tired of articles like this. Why the continual one-way focus on women? Why can't we just let individuals be individuals, and do whatever they want? Ensure that there are no artificial barriers due to gender (or skin color, or hair color, or whatever), stop pushing people in directions they don't want to go, and just let people choose whatever career they want.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:As always, it only goes one way... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      The news yesterday had a report on schools that train people to become small-animal veterinarians here in Switzerland. They happened to mention that 80% of the students are women. This is apparently fine; there is no outcry to find more male veterinary students.

      So for those 20% that are men - is it difficult for them to succeed as vets? Is it viewed as somewhat non-masculine behavior? Is it actually viewed as uncommon as in "so what do you do? A what? A vet? Wow, are there many men that are vets?"

      stop pushing people in directions they don't want to go, and just let people choose whatever career they want.

      I totally agree with that... though I think we also need to consciously try to encourage people to think this way, as I don't think it comes naturally. People naturally think certain careers are manly and certain careers are womanly, and it seems hard for people to change that thinking.

    2. Re:As always, it only goes one way... by itzly · · Score: 1

      So for those 20% that are men - is it difficult for them to succeed as vets? Is it viewed as somewhat non-masculine behavior? Is it actually viewed as uncommon as in "so what do you do? A what? A vet? Wow, are there many men that are vets?"

      Must be difficult, because we've been told that all male/female differences are due to societal pressures, and not because of innate interests.

    3. Re:As always, it only goes one way... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I responded to you in another thread. I am not stalking you. ;) I would venture to say that it seems like we actually seem to agree pretty much, but may have seen different experiences and are approaching it from two different perspectives. I apparently have seen the problem of ignoring the societal pressure issue more and you seem to have seen the ignoring genuine interest differences more.

      I agree, the generalization that all male/female differences are due to societal pressures is stupid. I DO think generalizations can be made about males or females as a whole, and thus I would expect certain fields/careers to be more women than men. But I don't expect every given woman to conform, nor do I think it's weird if they don't.

      So, just as assuming that all male/female differences are due to socieal pressures is stupid, I would argue that so is assuming that it's all because of different generalized interests. Or "genderalized" :)

    4. Re:As always, it only goes one way... by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

      Why the continual one-way focus on women? Why can't we just let individuals be individuals, and do whatever they want? Ensure that there are no artificial barriers due to gender (or skin color, or hair color, or whatever), stop pushing people in directions they don't want to go, and just let people choose whatever career they want.

      Ever since women could conceive children, they've never needed an excess of men to parent the human race. One (very lucky) man is all that's needed... but themselves women are the "irreplacable" part of the equation... AND they seek to remind us of this all the time.

      Hence men and women have NEVER been equal and NEVER WILL BE.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    5. Re:As always, it only goes one way... by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Why the continual one-way focus on women?

      Because they're usually the ones who avoid fields due to barriers to entry rather than due to choice.

      To prove your point, you would need to find as many men who wanted to get into child care and avoided it due to discriminatory factors as you can find women who avoided tech careers due to discrimination.

      While you could probably find at least one example in both cases, I'd be willing to hazard that the latter group would be much larger over a wide enough sample set.

  30. Direction by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    I often feel like I am the last person alive who remembers when programming used to be about code and making shit do shit. Now its all drama and I often want to quit as now the only thing people look at is what I say - looking for a phrase they can twist - and not the code I make.

  31. Unfairly biased against small projects by gman003 · · Score: 1

    The key point this misses is that the Bechdel test is about the work itself, not who wrote it. This test is thus susceptible to certain flaws. In particular, it will flag numerous single-developer projects as "sexist" due to simple chance.

    This would fail at least 50% of all single-developer projects, even if there were no sexism anywhere. Other small projects would be unfairly penalized, and projects with tiered architectures and tiered development would be especially susceptible.

    This is obviously contrary to the goal of the "test", and in fact bears only superficial similarity to the Bechdel test (the point of which, by the way, is not to determine which works are sexist or not (after all, Debbie Does Dallas passes), but to show how endemic weak female characters are by the sheer number that fail).

  32. No by zmooc · · Score: 1

    The Bechdel test is about content, not about authors.

    Furthermore, there are reasons to assume the average women is less interested in programming than the average male. Science seems to indicate this difference in interests is already present in newborns. I can strongly recommend this documentary on that subject:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Also, I strongly suspect nearly all good programmers to have some kind of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), often undiagnosed, simply because that "disorder" makes them exceptionally good at tasks typically performed by programmers. ASD is prevalent in males 4.3 times more than in females.

    All in all there are more than enough valid reasons to assume the gender gap in software engineering is absolutely normal and is here to stay. I don't see why this subject is even worth discussing; it's about as interesting as the gender-gap amongst nurses: not interesting at all.

    --
    0x or or snor perron?!
  33. Re:This is why female programmers can't get a job by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

    Hey! For some of us, that's our jobs. Yes, we check statistics on code check-ins to see what's going on. We believe in visibility and bringing access to this data for warehousing and analysis. And we can often see issues with modules (like code suckage - for example when your defect database has particular components that align with points of high code churn, it's not a spot you'd want to vacation in). Statistics about the code and its production can tell you a lot, if you listen. But I don't think you're interested in listening.

    --
    That is all.
  34. A test for everything by aoism · · Score: 1

    I'd love to have a test that determines if an article is fembaiting drivel, and then promptly discourages me from clicking on it. Who cares if a function is written by a woman, or by a man, or a transgender, or by the application itself in a meta sort of way? Is this what they talk about at the Woman only tech conferences (like this one, which for the first time ever, is allowing men to attend the 'celebration of Women' tech conference!), in addition to ironically talking about equality and being included in the "male dominated tech club" ?

    1. Re:A test for everything by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'd love to have a test that determines if an article is fembaiting drivel, and then promptly discourages me from clicking on it. .

      These days, the word "female" in TFS seems to be showing good success.

  35. This is fun! by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    Ooo hey I like making up arbitrary tests too!

    The Bach-Dell Test
    A movie is not pants if, at any point, two characters named Del Bachman are in a dell listening to Bach on Dell laptops.

    The Bake 'Til Test:
    A pastry passes this test if it was baked by bakers, for bakers, for a number of minutes equal to the number of bakers involved.

    The Beck Tell Test:
    A joke is only funny if it's about the musical artist Beck, and told by Beck to himself.

    tl;dr: it's basically a yo dawg gag

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  36. Bias against coding an unanswered question by drnb · · Score: 1

    If no one gives a shit about who writes functions, then why are women so underrepresented in computing? Do not say it because women don't like programming or engineering, because that's clearly false. Women had much more representation in the industry 30 years ago.

    I had a girlfriend who was an actual developer, MS CS, 68K embedded systems. A close female friend with a BS CS was a developer and DB person in the corporate world, now a project leader in such areas. I had a female project leader who although not a developer was quite tech savvy and a good leader/manager, and a gamer. Regrettably these are few and far between. However I think your argument demonstrates a basic failure in statistics. Recall how in your statistics class caveats such as "all other things being equal" were constantly being thrown about. You fail because the workflow of the industry decades ago was radically different.

    Decades ago there was a lot more "clerical" work is software development, especially in corporate and government environments. A great-aunt was a punch card operator who took code written on paper by developers and created the punch cards to be fed into the mainframes. It was considered an inefficient use of resources to have an "engineer" create their own punch cards when one could hire a "girl" to do so at a fraction of the cost. This sort of thing contributes to the higher participation of women in the tech industry in the past.

    Whether or not there is some inherent bias against coding tasks, a bias that occurs naturally more often in females than in males, is an unanswered question.

    It's been declining over the years while the frat boy attitude in the workplace has been going up.

    Also read up on causality in that statistics textbook. Frat boy behavior may be the result of a lack of women. Males in isolation deviate from their normal behavior. I'm not 100% sure but I think it has been documented that men typically voluntarily act "better" (self control and self censorship in the less childish sense) when women are around. As a long term participant of the industry I've certainly seen such behavior as the rare female developer joins/leaves the team. Most, like me, thought it good to have women around, that the sausage fest and the stupidity that results is dumb.

    If you're perfect, then great. But there are many men who are offended that women would even compete with them, many men who intimidate others especially women, many men who think telling a dirty joke is proper on-the-job conduct, many men who see discrimination but do nothing about it and thus reinforce the status quo.

    Substitute "many men" for "some men" and your comment becomes more realistic and less political dogma. Then note that you are merely saying that there are a few a-holes in every large group. Well, yeah.

    I'm old enough to remember when people claimed there was no racism in the 70s either.

    And I'm old enough to remember being in elementary school during the 70s and that there was no racism between the four white boys (me one of them) who had the desks adjacent to a black boy in a blue collar neighborhood. Racism is largely a generational thing. Most often you were raised that way or you weren't, and for the exceptions its probably far more common for someone who was raised racist to reject it than for someone who was raised without it to embrace it. Racism has been in sharp decline for many decades. As has sexism. My grandmother who had done electronics assembly for Navy aircraft during WW2 was "let go" when the war ended to create a job for a man returning from the war. She may have been able to get a clerical job, like her sister, in a tech company but not anything close to technical work as she had done. Today's issue being crude frat boy jokes demonstrates remarkable progress.

    1. Re:Bias against coding an unanswered question by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that when I was in school we had more women. I almost always had one woman or more on just about every programming team I was on for classes as an undergrad. They may not always have gone on to developing, some may have decided to do IT or management instead, but the proportion was relatively high compared to today. My first job doing systems admin we had more than half the staff as women at some times. So the common excuse I hear that women just aren't into computing and tech is just completely wrong.

    2. Re:Bias against coding an unanswered question by drnb · · Score: 1

      If you read the classic "When Women Stopped Coding" articles it blames personal computers in the home. That boys gravitated towards them but not girls, and the girls were thus less competitive when they started studying CS in college unlike in pre-personal computer decades when they were on an equal footing.

      The suggestion is made that computers were marketed towards boys. That is speculation. It has not been shown that high school aged girls had equal interest but were discouraged or if there was some other age/gender trait that made them less interested.

      The article I recall reading mentioned a girl who was a math wiz and decided she wanted to study CS. Well maybe math wizes were more equally distributed between the sexes and CS was formerly dominated by such people, and maybe the personal computer opened up CS to non-math wizes so were are comparing two completely different demographics pre and post personal computer, so comparisons are more complicated. While math wizes may naturally be more equally distributed maybe the non-math wizes with computer interests are naturally not so equally distributed. Its a bit of a leap not to consider such factors and just assume it was due to marketing.

  37. you mean a show by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    that realistically shows computer use and yes NCIS I am looking at you :-)

  38. classic example? by Chirs · · Score: 1

    By the way, I like to have sex with women because I LIKE IT.

    One could argue that this is a classic example of objectification...

    Let's see:
    "The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes" -- check
    "The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type..." -- check
    "The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account" -- check

    1. Re: classic example? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      One could, if one had very bad reading comprehension.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:classic example? by ewibble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account" -- check

      Your experience of sex must be very different from mine. A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too.

      The other parts well, are very general.

      "The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"

      Arguably you do pretty much everything for your own purposes, even making someone else happy. You do it because you experience pleasure from there happiness.

      "The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type..."

      If someone you want to have sex with refuses, what are you supposed to do? Not have sex ever again because no other man/woman will do? If you get no longer want to have sex with someone clearly they are not interchangeable since the old person will not do.

    3. Re:classic example? by BalthCat · · Score: 1

      Your mistake here is in assuming you're replying to someone who identifies all sex as objectifying. Chirs is responding to an AC who spoke of why they like sex in entirely selfish terms. "I like it, it is in my nature." AC chose not to, or neglected to, mention whether they enjoy giving pleasure to their partners, which would be a more altruistic (except in a very cynical sense) reason for liking sex. Chirs is just identifying this as potentially being a sign of objectification. If AC had said "A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too." then Chirs would have been unreasonable in saying what they did.

  39. Gender bias? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I see all these articles about gender bias in the IT industry.
    Then I scroll down to the comment section on the slashdot mobile site and think "yes, that character in the Game of War app has really big boobs"

  40. Re:Wrong measure of progress by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about!?!?

    You should architecting your software and planning your development teams based on the gender of the programmers, so female programmers can integrate with other female programmers without a male programmer getting in their way.

    That's how you write robust software.

    Wait a minute...

  41. Hmmm. by drolli · · Score: 1

    The occurence of in a project may not necessarily reflect the attitude of the project towards gender issues, but may be more reflecting the percentage of women in a team.

    It is funny how somebody who acts as a CTO tries to convert a test which specifically examines the dialogs (which are untimatly a important part of a movie) to something where the statistics will skew results to meaningless garbage to derive from some weird side definition.

    Maybe she was mistaken, function calls are not human interaction. More interesting would be an closer look at the process of the creation of the function (like "at least two roles in the project interacting directly must be filled by women") Still, there would be the statistics issue with this, but at least it could tell something about the human interaction.

  42. If that's the by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

    most important thing the CTO of a tech company finds to consider, I think the tech company has a problem. I want well-written, well-tested code. I really don't care about the DNA of the person (people) who wrote said code. Now that I think about it, most of the code I've encountered in my life has been modified by multiple people before I ever got to it. How do I tell the gender of the person who wrote the function, particularly if the function has been modified by several people? And how can I even check their gender if all that is associated with an update is a userid? Perhaps the "T" in CTO stands for "Twaddle"?

    --
    linquendum tondere
  43. Gender segregation by puzzled_decoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Literally the best way to pass this test about gender imbalance is to segregate genders based on project. .... ....
    I don't even....

  44. Fad by non0score · · Score: 1

    When people start misapplying gender equality to inappropriate topic tests this publicly, one has got to wonder if the topic has become a new fad.

  45. How about the George Strait test? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    For as long as old men, sit and talk about the weather,
    For as long as old women, sit and talk about old men,

    But then George was a man, so what does he know ...

  46. Try applying Bechdel to people, not code by nuonguy · · Score: 1

    I agree that this application of the Bechdel test to coding is vacuous. The best alternative I can come up with is asking a woman to make a presentation at a conference, or put up a blog post with her photo on the page while taking a strong position on a controversial topic, like maybe, male dominated gaming culture. I would give it a fail if anyone made a comment that involved her gender.

    All of you towering intellectuals who made comments about who gives a fuck / just make the code work / who cares who wrote it / miss the point entirely. You added nothing to the conversation except to highlight that no matter how weak the Bechdel test might be, you might be the reason the test exists.

  47. Re: This is why female programmers can't get a job by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    No wonder dudes refuse to see sexism, if they refuse to even look for it.

    I don't see unicorns either - doesn't mean I should waste my time looking for them.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  48. Enough by sad_ · · Score: 1

    Most stupid thing ever.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  49. Unit Tests by JamieMcGuigan · · Score: 1

    Given that this is an generic requirement for PC (Politically Correct) software, software engineering best practice requires that this be abstracted into external library, decoupled from any code with purely orthogonal technical requirements and of course unit tested to provide the PC green tick of approval. Additionally, according to the rules of the Turing test and modern queer theory, lib.woman is legally allowed to be autogenerated by a computer that can successfully convince it's audience that not only is it human, but that it self-identifies as a woman.

    describe("diversity", function() {
    it("should pass the Bechdel test", function() {
    expect( require('woman').getAuthor().getGender() ).to.be("female");
    expect( require('woman').makeMeASandwich("sudo") ).not.to.throw(Error);
    })
    })

  50. Stop! by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    Gender balancing is the wrong concept at play, it doesn't matter if a female / male does 0% of a project or 100% of a project, it's a meaningless percentage to take. The very fact that you've broke the system down to look at it as a percentage of work means that you're concept of fairness isn't genuine. Fairness means you extract the very fact that a person is a man or woman and just see them as human, a human wrote this, a human wrote that, not a male or female. All these tests prove is that we need an excuse to not be sexist, well the only people who aren't are the people who don't need a test to be fair.

  51. Re:It's a stupid test. by Cederic · · Score: 1

    So pen the remake, Twelve Angry Women.

    It's probably due to be recycled anyway..

  52. Re:custom languages don't have functions by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Yeah. A language without functions/procedures/methods/named predicates/subroutines (same thing basically) is not a programming language, unless it's assembler, in which case, if you're not using standard conventions that essentially implement organized subroutines (i.e. functions...) you're not doing it right.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?