Google's Diversity Chief: Mamas Don't Let Their Baby Girls Grow Up To Be Coders

theodp writes: Explaining the reasons for its less-than-diverse tech workforce, Google fingered bad parenting for its lack of women techies. From the interview with Google Director of Diversity and Inclusion Nancy Lee: "Q. What explains the drop [since 1984] in women studying computer science? A. We commissioned original research that revealed it's primarily parents' encouragement, and perception and access. Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science and don't steer them in that direction. There's this perception that coding and computer science is ... a 'brogrammer' culture for boys, for games, for competition. There hasn't been enough emphasis on the power computing has in achieving social impact. That's what girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter." While scant on details, the Google study's charts appear to show that, overall, fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers. Google feels that reeducation is necessary. "Outreach programs," advises Google, "should include a parent education component, so that parents learn how to actively encourage their daughters."

Comments

females operate on emotion, not logic

[rightwingLeftist]

not that they are incapable of logic, but emotion is their fundamental mental underpinning

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even attempting to be scientific here, just spouting nonsense.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[twistedcubic]

C'mon, you can troll better than that!

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as for males, actually.

Human beings in general aren't very rational, even though we may think we are. Those who have these grand notions of purpose behind their actions are usually merely very good at rationalising.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

not that they are incapable of logic, but emotion is their fundamental mental underpinning

Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...

And why most murders are committed by women ... darn, again not true ...

How about most recipients of the darwin awards being women? ... oops -

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females

So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Sevalecan]

I thought this was true for all genders and species. I'm constantly pushing myself to be more logical and have more control over my emotions, but I'm nowhere near completely there. And some of that might also aid in social awkwardness.

For the record, in regards to the post, I didn't learn how to use Linux extensively through playing around with Gentoo or learn to program C and whatnot because my parents encouraged it. Having said that, my mother bought me an HTML book when I was young, and only after seeing that I was starting to make my own websites. Now I'm studying electrical engineering at school, and my parents never told me or suggested what I should do. It was entirely my choice driven by what I found to be my own interests. So having said that, why must we assume that women don't participate in STEM as much due to outside influences?

Anyway, someone said something about Feminist Friday... It's been what, 3 days?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, men do get raped far more often than women. Just clearing that one point up.

(Real rape, that is. Not this silly "new" rape concept).

And the rest of your points seem to assume that crime is inherently emotional. This is a highly questionable thesis.

And... I've never seen a man cry at work btw. ...Just saying.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

There's good studies that there are as many male victims of battering as there are female. Males are less likely to get hurt when battered by a female, obviously, and are less likely to report battering, so there is far less need for a 'battered male' shelter. Just remember it's not because females are any less likely to resort to violence than males are.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

Although GP is clearly a troll, you are attacking his point fallaciously.

1. Even if men were by far the most emotional irrational beings on earth, that would not disprove "emotion is [females'] fundamental mental underpinning"
2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.
3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.

Let me state clearly that I do not agree with the GP. The only thing I'm trying to do here is point out some logical fallacies in the hope that this will improve the quality of the discussion.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[ShanghaiBill]

Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ...

60-70% of domestic violence is initiated by women. The reason we don't have "battered men" shelters is that it is socially acceptable for women to be violent, and that any man that "can't handle it" isn't a real man, and should be ashamed of himself. In the media, when women are depicted as violent toward their partners, it is almost always supposed to be funny.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[ShanghaiBill]

The spokesperson at Google making these claims, is not a tech. She is a lawyer. So there is likely no connection between what she says, and what she actually believes. Anyway, since she is a lawyer, her parents clearly didn't raise her right, so she may just be projecting the failure of her own parents onto others.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hard to find on Google.

But the "more male rapes" fact should say: More men than women are raped IN THE USA. ( Globally more women are raped. )

And the reason more men are raped in the USA is because the US has an absurdly large prison population.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[lgw]

And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...

Did you know most domestic violence in initiated by women? Did you know that by far lesbian relationships have more physical abuse than any other gender pairing? Abused men are just SOL - why do you need support or a shelter? Just man up! Perhaps not an argument for rationality, I'll grant you.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[SpankiMonki]

So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?

Yes! But it's not our fault. Evolution has hardwired male brains such that we experience a 20-30 point drop in IQ whenever we see boobs.

In fact, we don't even have to see boobs to start drooling with stupidity...just thinking about them makes us dull-witted morons - albeit to a lesser extent that when we see a fully exposed rack in all its glory.

So you see, Evolution (in its infinite wisdom) has ordained that women have boobs, and men are thus rendered idiots for the majority of their lives.

Now if you'll excuse me, I feel a strange urge to go make one of those "hey guys, watch this!!!" videos that often precede receipt of a Darwin Award.

p.s. BOOBS!

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your 95% stat, if corroborated anywhere, was not based on accurate data. Men are ashamed to come forward as victims of domestic abuse.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[LifesABeach]

The only thing that any reasonable sense is that the H1B's at Google give great head.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[LifesABeach]

Yup, that 120 pound woman against a 250 pound man? My money is the woman standing after the fight.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, men are just as likely to be domestically abused, but less likely to ask for help and when they ask for help, rarely given help. Pretty much every bad thing that happens to women also happens to men.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

not that they are incapable of logic, but emotion is their fundamental mental underpinning

Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...

And why most murders are committed by women ... darn, again not true ...

How about most recipients of the darwin awards being women? ... oops -

Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females

So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?

Silly, most murders are due either to one primary emotion (rage) or when it comes to serial killers psychopathy, which is generally a lack of ability to consider the emotions of others (hence the term "cold blooded killer").

There's actually a sizable amount of men that get raped/sexually-abused, or are 'battered husbands', but they even more rarely report it since men are taught that 'emotions are not to be shown' - in fact most women would dump a guy in a second if he was an overly emotional 'trainwreck' because they don't want wimps, they want men that 'make them feel safe', either extreme (a man that cries at the drop of a hat, or a man that flies into emotional rages) are huge turnoffs for most women. Men are also far more likely to be 'successful' in suicide (and have higher suicide rates in general) because they show less 'signs' for others to see (less 'public' emotion).

Re: females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious, after she calls the police.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you've never had to live with a vindictive woman. They can abuse the crap out of you and nothing you can do about it. Just stupid little shit. They're really good at staying on the fine line of being a bully without quite being assault. Women that I know who were in an abusive relationship just left and that was that. But men in a abusive relationship, no matter where they went in the country, the woman was great at making their life a living hell.

I've seen women call in false reports over and over and over and over. The police don't seem to care. I got to listen in on one first hand when I was voice chatting with a friend for almost 8 hours about how his wife was abusing him, when she suddenly came home, I could hear her screaming and yelling in the other room. She threatened to kill him several times, then she called the police on him, they showed up, and she immediately began crying and told the police how she was home all day and her husband just came home and started to beat her. Lucky for him, the police saw the bruises on him and she was fine. The police actually talked to us on mumble.

He wasn't so lucky the next week. she called the police, got a temporary restraining order just before the weekend, and the police kicked him out of his own house. He was homeless for the weekend, no money, no phone. Welcome to the USA.

Eventually we had to take him in to help him get back on his feet. We had her calling police on us, making false reports. Police refused to do anything about it. We were able to get a restraining order, but it took several months of constant harassment and a few death threats. Eventually what it took was my wife to call in and fake cry just like the other woman. That seems to get shit done.

Police do not respond well to yelling and they don't take being calm seriously. Wife calls police, talks to them in a pissed off tone, they think you're crazy. She calls the police and talks to them calmly, they don't think anything is really happening. Call them and be crying like your child died and you get somewhere. You need to be crying. How often do you see a man bawling his eyes out? A lot of women can do this on demand.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confusing "lawyer" with "politician."

Lawyers come in good, bad, and sociopathic varieties. Politicians only come in pure sociopathic and bad sociopathic varieties.

Even the bad or sociopathic lawyers will tell the truth when the law compels them to. Politicians only tell the truth when, by coincidence, the truth furthers their agenda.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[sonicmerlin]

You literally just made up the 95% number. How does it feel to be a victim of cognitive dissonance? To know that you're so scared of the truth you twist reality to fit your biases?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[sonicmerlin]

Research indicates women use tools and weapons far more than men, which make up for their physical limitations. They also carry grudges for far longer than the male partner and will re initiate the violence at a later date.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

So both men and women operate emotionally, contrary to the post that I replied to.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Oligonicella]

That initiated is physical as well as mental. Please link to those studies instead of a promotional site. When the woman can hit her boyfriend/husband and he calls the police and *HE* is arrested for domestic violence even when witness support the events, all the stats are suspect.
Don't be a useful tool.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the statistics in that link have citations. There is no evidence to prove that the author of that page didn't just make it up - and as a clearly partisan website, they have plenty of reason to do so.

Give me a link to a peer-reviewed paper, and we'll talk.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Cyberax]

I actually know something about the material at hand. The meta-studies of sources reveal that most of the data about who initiated the conflict is BS: http://www.domestic-violence.m... see page 20 (table 5) and further. It turns out that men under-report it (duh) and so you can't rely on that data.

And even your article shows that men are more likely to inflict serious injuries or use weapons.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BoberFett]

Yeah, and I'm sure that 140 lb male is going to fare well against that 180 lb female mixed martial artist.

How about you stop being a dumbass and bring things to reality rather than making up exaggerated claims. The average man weighs about 35lbs more than the average woman.

https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

There's also the testosterone benefit.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

That is total bullcrap. Instead of repeating the big lie, you could have just searched for it and found this study

While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10, a study says

Men are responsible for most cases of domestic violence, but women are three times more likely to be arrested for incidents of abuse, research reveals today.

A report into domestic abuse and gender by Bristol University found that the majority of cases involved alcohol misuse, that women were more likely to use a weapon to protect themselves and that children were present in the majority of cases.

Previous research has shown that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police are men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%), with many more repeat incidents recorded for male than female perpetrators. While the majority of incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police involve male-to-female abuse, little is known about the nature of incidents where men are recorded as victims and women as perpetrators, nor about the circumstances where both partners are recorded as perpetrators.

The new study, by professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol's school for policy studies and carried out on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, looked at 96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007.

The research looked at 32 cases where women were the aggressors, 32 where men were in that role, and 32 where it was both partners.

It found that 48% of the cases were related to couples still in a relationship, 27% involved violence after separation and the rest involved couples in the process of splitting up.

Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.

Men were significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats and harassment, and to damage the women's property; women were more likely to damage their own.

Men's violence tended to create a "context of fear and control", the researchers said, whereas women were more likely to use verbal abuse or some physical violence.

But women were more likely to use a weapon, although this was often to stop further violence from their partners.

All cases with seven or more incidents, most of which involved men, led to arrest

But in general, women were three times more likely to be arrested: during the six-year period, men were arrested once in every 10 incidents and women arrested once in every three.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

When women use tools and weapons, it's often to stop further violence from their partners.

Also:

Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.

52. That guy sure held a grudge. That most men have two or more incidents, and most women one, kind of shows who's the more forgiving (and ends up returning to get beaten again), and it ain't men.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

You really need to learn to read better. That 70% is only for cases where the woman initiated the violence and the man didn't respond. Here are other numbers from that same study that show men are the perps more often, and do more injury:

Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women

and

National estimates indicate that approximately 25% of women report being victims of a partner’s physical or sexual violence at some point in their life, and approximately 1.5 million women and 835 000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually

So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

No I did not know, and I also can't find the proofs in the links to the studies about the subject you provided.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[ShanghaiBill]

So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.

No, twice as many women report being victims. The men are shamed into silence.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Instead of repeating myself ad nauseum, just follow this link and this one :-)

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Without some proof, that's just an anecdote with no backing. If you want to get into anecdotal evidence, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, but I have been sexually assaulted a few times. And no, I didn't report them (though the first one was reported by hospital staff after admitting me, and the medical secretary at the hospital said I should report the second one after I told her about it).

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Gavagai80]

While I agree that domestic violence is a bigger problem for women and am not supported the grandparent poster, I think the higher arrest rates are likely to be a function of men only reporting the more severe incidents to the police due to the humiliation/emasculation factor. If men wait to only call the police when they have visible bruises/cuts, that makes it a lot more likely that the police visit will result in an arrest than when there's no readily obvious physical evidence. This is likely a factor in why 62% of female perpetrators were only reported once as well.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

And sexual violence on women (and men) is vastly under-reported. We have to work with the hard data we've got. And that data shows that there's way too much violence, period.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

We have men's shelters here, and nice big posters on the walls in the waiting rooms of the local health centers advertising them. Women's shelters get pamphlet space. This is because unlike women, men don't know there are domestic violence shelters catering to their needs so there's a push to inform the public.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.

I respectfully disagree. Here is a study that shows that men and women are equally likely to be victims of domestic abuse, but that feminists try to "conceal, deny, and distort the evidence."

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Pubstar]

Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...

Yeah, because when a woman beats a man, the guy gets told to "Man the fuck up." I had an run with a physically abusive woman. The one time she called the cops on me for "beating her up" (read: restraining her from harming me any further), the cops showed up, saw she didn't have a single mark on her and I was covered in blood. They STILL treated me like I was the abuser in the situation when they showed up.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Pubstar]

Im going to reply to you again, but man, I wish I could find the study that shows that queer women in particular are actually more likely to be the victims of rape by another queer women (stat was something like 1 in 3, vs. 1 in 5 for male raping females)

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[KGIII]

That fence post won't move itself. Nobody implied it was okay.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[KGIII]

And even your article shows that men are more likely to inflict serious injuries or use weapons.

You must be a weightlifter. Those goalposts are heavy and difficult to move. I have no dog in the fight but I do see a lack of logic. 15 yard penalty and a loss of the down.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[KGIII]

I am sorry you had to go through that and I wish the world were a better place. I haven't experienced either, I have walked out on a woman who was threatening violence. I paid the police to escort me back to retrieve my belongings. I am not criticizing when I say that it may have been better for you (and potential future victims) if you had reported it. Your choices are your own and I am in no position to judge. Thus the statement is my own thoughts as to what I would suggest if asked. I don't call the cops when there are issues. I did bring one with me to ensure I was not blamed for anything when I retrieved my belongings but I had to pay his salary to get him to do so. It took a half hour but they demand a full hour minimal so it was $35, nothing major.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Pubstar]

I had replied to comment that someone had linked to it on Reddit, but Im on a work PC and reddit is blocked. Thank god they leave /. open.

What I find really funny is that I'm pretty hardcore anti-SJW (with the recent GamerGate happenings) even though I would have been considered one until recently. I did work with the GSA when time would permit (new job doesn't allow me to), and I had started two GSA chapters at my old HS, and was active at the one at my community college. Of course, when a group of people start calling you a "Cisgender, heteronormative, misogynistic white man of privilege" for no reason other than who you associate with, you start to get a bad taste in your mouth.

Ill post the study when I can find it, it was quite the interesting read. I had no idea it was a problem.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an ex-girlfriend who was physically abusive with me. She used to hit me, punch me in the face or whatever and I just stood and took it. One day I had had enough and called her father, so the next day he came over and helped her to move out.

I ran into her out at a club about a month later, said hello and went back to talking to a friend I was there with (who happened to be a woman). When I left, the ex-girlfriend followed me out and asked me if I wanted a ride home, which I declined. She kept insisting, so I caved and said OK. When we got to the front of my house, I said good night and started to get out of the car when she flipped out and started screaming about how I didn't pay any attention to her at the club, then punched me in the face. I got out and told her I never wanted to see her again and that if I did, I would get my sister to come kick her ass.

I never did see her again.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Cyberax]

So you don't have anything to counter? Ok.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

For every sobbing woman, there is some guy beating his chest, trying to prove how macho he is, so yes, I would agree.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Martial arts are nice when you're in a ring with rules and honour and shit, but it's absolutely worthless in a real fight where anything goes.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[LifesABeach]

I guess in your trailer park life is different? Just how bad was that public beat down from that mother to be princess barbie twelve year old?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is anecdotal of course but the groups of people that I know of being physically abused at home splits: 2femals and 3 males. Neither would admit that they were victims - the 'blue eye' was acquired by falling on a soap and some such. I suppose societies where women have less rights than they do in western societies this works to a different distribution.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[goose-incarnated]

If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.

Hell I forgot about that study - quite recent too - It's in the CDC site somewhere (I trust you'll find it if you look :-) Basically as a woman your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man. If you're a man your highest risk of domestic violence is *from* SO woman, not SO man.

In short, if you're a female you're safest living with a man; if you're a man you're safest living with a man too. If you're living with a woman your odds of getting seriously hurt and/or raped doubles (yes, literally doubles) over those that result from living with a man.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

This article quotes the Santa Fe Rape Crisis and Trauma Treatment Center as saying 1 in 3 lesbians are sexually assaulted by other women. No stats on straight women being raped by lesbians.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm willing to believe this; however, when they don't use tools, they still inflict harm.

My wife has taken to a sudden bout of blaming me for the cause of her breast cancer. See, after eight years of her basically indicating that I've ruined her life, my reward for trying to sooth things out is an irrational belief that due to my presence, she contracted breast cancer.

If I didn't have morals. And of course she's going to be safe and cared for; however, she's boasting that she has the police on her side because she's always just a quick cry and 911 call away from bringing them out for the fourth time.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

No one asks for proof when people claim one in four women are raped on campus in the US.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

2. Risk taking, murder and aggression are not necessarily driven by emotion. It's a fine line, but technically those behaviors can be (and might often be) about attaining social status or power.

And what is the desire for social status and power, if not emotional?

3. There is evidence that there should be many more 'husband shelters' and that their lack is driven largely by a culture of (implicitly) shaming 'weak men', not by a lack of battered husbands.

How is that not an example of emotion trumping rationality? Shame is precisely an emotion.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

I have no idea on the background and if it is reasonable, but:

for no reason other than who you associate

who you associate with is part of who you are and it's entirely reasonable to judge someone by who they keep as friends. If a person for example spent a lot of time hanging with Neo-Nazis or Klansmen, you can be I'm going to make judgements based on thatn.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

And what is the desire for social status and power, if not emotional?

Rational.

How is that not an example of emotion trumping rationality? Shame is precisely an emotion.

1. That wasn't the point. I was pointing out the fallacious reasoning.
2. It is rational to not want to be ostracized by society as being a weak man. But there is a fine line here as well. A lot of our emotional behavior has a basis in rationality. You could say that if someone does (or doesn't do) something out of shame, but doesn't think about the rational part of doing so, it is purely driven by emotion. To return to your question: only when emotion leads someone to doing something that they wouldn't have done had they rationally looked at it does it become a problem.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

I'm not doing this again with you. You consistently ignore my points and just change the subject.

Goodbye.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[buddyglass]

Men commit murder at a much higher rate than women. Ergo all men are murderers. Amirite? Point: you shouldn't take aggregate trends and pretend that they apply to all members of a group.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

OP is probably a woman.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[geminidomino]

And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters

Nah, that's just because feminists threaten violence and murder the dogs of people who try to open them

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Thanks. The problem is that when either side threatens, the other side usually forgets that the smart option is to walk away. Of course, the same is true for the person making the threats - if it's that bad that you feel you have to make threats, it's time to walk away.

People are so anxious to try to "fix" things, they perceive the emotional stakes as being so high, that they don't really see it as an outsider would (see "distorted thinking").

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[KGIII]

I can understand distorted thinking and it is an unfortunate (or maybe not) human trait. I have tried so hard to be logical in my dealings that I don't get attached and fear I have missed out on many warm experiences because of this. Yet, when I think back, I have been highly illogical. It is quite a dilemma. The pragmatism, stoic even, traits of my belief system do not help, I am a Buddhist which does not help much.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Took a while to godwin this one, didn't it? :-) If I spend time with christians, that doesn't make me a christian. Same with muslims. Same with jews. Same with the french. Same with people of colour. Same with gays. Same with lesbians. Same with the cisgendered.

Do you believe that all the Irish who voted for same-sex marriage are gay or lesbian?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Username checks out.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Whether the stats are accurate or not shouldn't be the issue. I totally get why they don't report it to police, because there's still a lot of denial that it's even possible, and "excuse-making" that blames the victim, same as "were you dressed provocatively" for other rape victims.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Your best bet is to leave, at least temporarily. It takes 2 to fight, and your presence is enabling her to continue to play the victim at your expense. Your continued presence is, in fact, ruining her life (and yours) because just your presence enables her to keep playing the "you gave me cancer" card, knowing that you'll try to "sooth things out". When you do that, you're rewarding her behaviour.

It's said that absence makes the heart grow fonder - it also gives both sides time to decompress instead of being caught up in the day-to-day drama.

On the question of morals, the right thing to do is to break the cycle. It may help her, and it will definitely help you. Right now she has no incentive to seek how she may be part of the problem or to get help. We have short-term mens shelters here - maybe you have one in your area?

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Sure they do.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

How is pointing out that testosterone has a very heavy influence on how men react changing the subject - which was the claim that women act emotionally, as if men don't just as much, if not more?

One really good example:

while divorce and separation are linked to suicide risk in both sexes, divorced/separated men seem particularly vulnerable to suicidal “ideation” (thoughts and planning) and to suicide itself

That's a highly emotional response, and it's weighted more towards men than women.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Calgary was, until the last provincial election, full-on right-wing conservative, same as the feds are. We have shelters for men who are victims of abuse in Quebec, so I don't see why they report that "the only shelter for abused men has closed."

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Distorted thinking (or cognitive distortion) is something we all do. It's really bad when you fall victim to trying to apply logic to a situation that is not based (or resolvable) by logic. The therapist who helped me deal with PTSD made a good point - you can't understand crazy unless you're crazy yourself. Sometimes there's just no logical understanding for a situation, and that's okay.

The belief that if you try enough you can fix something is one example. And when you fail, you end up feeling guilty for not trying hard enough. When you realize that you can't "fix" someone else (women are stereotypically portrayed as being guilty of this) that takes a lot of pressure off, because instead of trying to fix them, you can do something more constructive, such as trying to accept the reality of it and modify your actions accordingly.

Feelings are feelings. I don't know why I like ice cream, but I do. I can give reasons for it, but that's just post hoc rationalization. My liking ice cream wasn't a rational decision - I just like it.

You know that old saying - "know thyself"? Part of that is knowing it's okay to be flawed, to make decisions based on emotion and feelings - after all, if you can accept it in others, you should be able to accept it in yourself. As Robo-Cop said, "Patience, Lewis. We're only human."

All the best for both of you.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

2. It is rational to not want to be ostracized by society as being a weak man. But there is a fine line here as well. A lot of our emotional behavior has a basis in rationality. You could say that if someone does (or doesn't do) something out of shame, but doesn't think about the rational part of doing so, it is purely driven by emotion. To return to your question: only when emotion leads someone to doing something that they wouldn't have done had they rationally looked at it does it become a problem.

Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional. Frankly our entire behaviour is emotion driven because without that there isn't any rationale for doing anything at all except, possibly, minimizing pain.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

So? You didn't address my point, you instead made up a tangential point and thoroughly rebutted it. Well done, you sure showed that straw man who was boss!

If you spend time hanging with Neo Nazis, then you're of questionable character.

Re: females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

And it seems you have nothing intelligent to say, but it's not like that has ever stopped you. So please... continue...

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional.

Except when it isn't. Maybe that group of people have something you want. Like, maybe a STEM job. Or are you saying feminists are just being emotional when they complain about employers and coworkers ostracizing them?

Frankly our entire behaviour is emotion driven because without that there isn't any rationale for doing anything at all except, possibly, minimizing pain.

Well, minimizing pain IS a way to drive behavior that is not emotional. So no, all our entire behavior is emotion driven. We're not animals, at least, not those of us who believe in equality and respect.

If we are emotion driven, how could we ever teach boys not to rape? "Sorry officer, she just looked too good in that dress. I couldn't control my emotions "

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fight a boxer or wrestler and get back to us :)

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's the feminists who are actively denying all services and justices for men. It's not that women aren't treated poorly, it's that men are treated far worse.

You're a horrible person.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

Except that caring whether you're ostracised by a particular group of people (there are more than enough in society that don't care about such things) is emotional.

The antithesis of rational is irrational. If you wish to disprove my point, you need to prove that it is irrational to care about being ostracized for being a weak man.
Hiding what is perceived as weakness is generally a very wise and rational strategy. Ask any leader of anything anywhere.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

You claimed that who you associate with is part of who you are. I showed that is not true.

Your introduction of Neo-Nazis is irrelevant to the facts. You're the one who made up a tangential argument that had nothing to do with the argument at hand.

However, I'll answer you stupid question - if I were a researcher, social worker, documentary maker, day-care worker, teacher, etc., and that required that I work among neo-nazis, sure I would. Would you deny care of or education to a child because their parents are idiots? Would you refuse to meet the parents to discuss any issues?

To do otherwise would just be to perpetuate the ignorance - but you seem to be just fine with that.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not see a male support group or shelter of any kind in a 1,000 mile radius.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

Then you should move to Poutineville, Kanuckistan. Or you should check with the men's homeless shelters - they sometimes either provide this service as an adjunct to their main service, or they can make a referral.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

You claimed that who you associate with is part of who you are. I showed that is not true.

No the only thing you showed was not true was the stupid claim of "hanging round with X makes you an X" for X in {christian, muslim, jewish, straight, gay, ...}

Which is marvellous, but besides any point because I never said that.

Seriously learn to read.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

Hiding what is perceived as weakness is generally a very wise and rational strategy. Ask any leader of anything anywhere.

You are implicitly assuming that being a leader is the best choice. That's an emotional call, not a rational one.

The thing is: there is no point in the universe. It doesn't exist for a reason, it just exists. There is no rational underlying basis for doing anything at all.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Not hard to find on Google.

OK, I searched "more male rapes" on Google. The first result was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

According to it, 1 in 71 men have been raped (in the US) and 1 in 20 women (in the UK). Not supporting your thesis unless you want to argue that UK women are more than three times as likely to be raped as US women. Going down to the second result, they seem to be using an estimate for male rape and number of reports for female rape. They should be either comparing estimate to estimate (with similar assumptions) or number of reports to number of reports.

Rape numbers are incredibly bad. Just by changing wording and assumptions, you can change the numbers radically. For example, the Wikipedia article includes rates of one in five (sexual assault), one in twenty (rape), and one in two hundred (reported rapes this year). It should be obvious that prison rapes of men can't outnumber rapes of women, as the total number of men who have been imprisoned is roughly equal to the number of women who have been raped. There'd have to be a 100% rape rate in prison to simply match the normal women's rate.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

Well, that's pretty much escalating it to a point where all discussion becomes useless. I say that is pretty weak.

I'm going to do two things here:
1. I am going to respond to the ontopic part of your attack.
2. I am going to go offtopic, see your weak nihilism and raise you strong nihilism.

1:
Rational means: 'making the optimal decision to further your goals.' The only thing I needed to prove was that there could be reasoning behind not wanting to be seen as weak. I went a little further and stated that there often is reasoning behind not wanting to be seen as weak. I repeat: rational conclusions are not universal; they depend on your goals. What is rational for one, may not be rational for another.

2:
I agree, there is no goal in the universe. I'd state it even stronger: there can ultimately be no ultimate goal of the universe (this particular universe may have an ultimate goal if it is nested in another universe, but that is sort of cheating with the word universe). The word goal is dependent on time and on a ranking of configurations of the universe. Coming closer to your goal means that the configuration of universe has changed in such a way that it is more likely that the set of configurations that define your goal will occur. Attaining your goal means being in the set of configurations that define that goal.

If all configurations exist 'simultaneously' (i.e., time is just another dimension), then the whole notion of 'moving to another configuration' is nonsensical. There can be no goal if there is no passing time.

Even if the universe is really only in one state at a time, there is no absolute reason to value one configuration over another. Reasons can emerge within the universe, but not outside of it. I.e.: all species have a basis to rank certain configurations above others (the dinosaurs might have certain preferences concerning asteroids), but without this emergent value system, there needs to be an inherent value system that defines which configurations of the universe are more desirable than others. The universe doesn't work that way: it has no concept of values. It is as you said: it just exists; it just happens. There are configurations that are statistically more likely and in that sense one could argue that the universe 'favors' those, but that is a far cry from our intuition of a 'goal' (heat death doesn't seem that interesting).

Finally: if there happened to be an ultimate goal, what would we do after attaining it? Suppose the ultimate goal of the universe is pushing a big red button in some crevice on Mars and we manage to push it. Then what?
In more technical terms: the set of configurations that would define an ultimate goal is necessarily relatively small and ranked above all other configurations. The only option when reaching it would be to 'roam' indefinitely in that limited set of configurations (although admittedly, it can still be an infinite set).

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no homeless shelters for men within 2,000 miles. You're starting to prove everyone's point here.

Here in the U.S., there are no services for men. I know there very few in Canada too. Feminists groups actively lobby against them, actively lobby against job safety for industries that are male only, they actively lobby against men's reproductive and parental rights, they actively lobby against male victims of violence, male victims of crime, male victims of suicide, male victims...

Feminism = 2.5~ million dead and enslaved men and counting.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

OK, I think you misunderstand: I'm not being nihilist. It's only nihilist if you're driven by literally nothing but logic because there is no logical point to anything. We're not nihilist though, because we have emotions driving us. I'm fine with that.

I'm also not arguing that rationality doesn't exist. That would be perverse.

Secondly, I think it's a stretch to say that I disagree that actions are rational if they further the goal. If the goal is not rational, then the actions are only marginally rational at best. If, for example I was driven to spend the rest of my life wandering round dressed as a giant chicken, well, it would a stretch to call the endavour logical.

The thing is, I believe as the expression goes "you can do as you will, but you cannot will as you will". In other words the goals you have selected have no basis in logic. So I agree that you can act logical to achieve goals, but you're still acting logically to do an ultimate illogical thing.

Anyway, in my mind people are irrationally tied to a place and a particular group of people. They'd rather pretend to be something they're not than go and find a group of people who accept them as they are. Personally, I find that illogical, because if your goal is maximising happiness, then there's a much better local maximum not far grom the current local maximum.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Pubstar]

So Google NISVS: An Overview of 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. It states that Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalkin by an intimate partner for women is 44% is lesbian relationships, 61% in bisexual, and 35% in heterosexual.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

You're in the US. You claim there are no homeless shelters for men within 2,000 miles. That's VERY hard to believe. Even a quick look at google maps shows that every point in the continental US is within 2,000 miles of a homeless shelter.

There's a bunch of them in Montreal, some for men, some for women, some for teens, even for LGBT.

Doing a quick search, there are homeless shelters in every Canadian province, and every state that I looked at at random.

The rest of your post is as fact-free. You're being paranoid.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

"Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value." (wikipedia)

The thing is: there is no point in the universe. It doesn't exist for a reason, it just exists. There is no rational underlying basis for doing anything at all.

I'm not being nihilist.

You are.

If the goal is not rational, then the actions are only marginally rational at best. If, for example I was driven to spend the rest of my life wandering round dressed as a giant chicken, well, it would a stretch to call the endavour logical.

If that was your goal, then yes, working towards that would be rational.

From wikipedia:
"Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated."

Given that there is (by your own admittance) no basis to call one goal more valid than another, a goal in itself cannot be irrational unless it conflicts with other goals pursued simultaneously.

Finally: I take it that you agree on the original point that caring about whether you are seen as weak by your peers can be (and often is) rational, given your silence on the topic.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

Rationally chasing an irrational goal is not rational behaviour.

Given that there is (by your own admittance) no basis to call one goal more valid than another, a goal in itself cannot be irrational unless it conflicts with other goals pursued simultaneously.

But you cannot claim the goals are *rational* either.

Finally: I take it that you agree on the original point that caring about whether you are seen as weak by your peers can be (and often is) rational, given your silence on the topic.

Nope, I think it's silly. If you can't be yourself around your peers, you could find new peers.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

Rationally chasing an irrational goal is not rational behaviour.

You can't just say nuh-uh and be done with it. Especially after I've already shown that what you just wrote is incorrect by definition. We could do the "but I don't define it that way"-dance, but that will lead us nowhere worth being.

But you cannot claim the goals are *rational* either.

I never did. Quite the opposite in fact. No goals are inherently rational or irrational. They can only be rational or irrational relative to some other or higher goal (if your ultimate goal is to die of starvation next week, it is irrational to have a goal of eating a healthy dinner every day for the coming week). Considering I said that I think there is no ultimate goal and there cannot be one, it necessarily means that there is ultimately nothing to which any goal can be relative to. And thus no goal can absolutely be rational or irrational.

Nope, I think it's silly. If you can't be yourself around your peers, you could find new peers.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Your arguments may be relevant. In any case, you ignored my points on this topic and I will do so for yours (and I'm being generous here in using the plural and calling them 'points') until you properly address mine.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

Especially after I've already shown that what you just wrote is incorrect by definition.

Huh? An irrational goal is irrational by definition because it's defined as an irrational one.

No goals are inherently rational or irrational.

Now that I disagree with. Goals are the result of emotion which is pretty much the epitome of irrationality.

In any case, you ignored my points on this topic

I thought I addressed them in a way you didn't like. If you count that as ignoring, then OK.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[dinfinity]

Huh? An irrational goal is irrational by definition because it's defined as an irrational one.

Which was not under contention. The chasing of an irrational goal is rational, whether or not the goal is irrational. Which was what that was about.

Now that I disagree with. Goals are the result of emotion which is pretty much the epitome of irrationality.

Don't be silly. You haven't even tried to read or in the slightest address the argumentation for my claim (which you are disagreeing with).

Which is exactly what I meant by 'ignoring my points'.

"I disagree with this. This is my opinion." is not an acceptable reply to a set of arguments. You can't just pretend they were never presented. You can't just ignore them.

Well, technically you can, but it makes for a terrible, terrible discussion. If your next reply doesn't show you making an effort, I am done here.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[serviscope_minor]

Which was not under contention. The chasing of an irrational goal is rational, whether or not the goal is irrational. Which was what that was about.

I disagree: if your goal is irrational then no matter how rationally you go about pursuing it you are still acting irrationally.

Which is exactly what I meant by 'ignoring my points'.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. Would you mind telling me precisely which point you feel I haven't addressed and I'll attempt to address it.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one large reason why there aren't battered men's shelters is feminist backlash. People have tried - hell, the woman who founded the very first women's shelter in the UK back in the 1970s tried to start a men's shelter later on (after it became clear that men are ~40% of domestic abuse victims, and ~70% of victims in non-reciprocal abuse). She got death threats, was forced to move, and someone stole/killed several of her dogs. In addition, the guy who was trying to start one in Canada got no government funding because of women protesting him; he eventually ran out of private funds, had to close his shelter down, and killed himself.

I agree with your overall point - OP is a dumbass - but pointing out the lack of men's shelters is not a good example, and is actually harmful to both the stated goals of feminism (equality) and abused males.

Re:females operate on emotion, not logic

[BarbaraHudson]

The report of the lack of men's shelters in Canada is totally inaccurate. Just because you want to make a living running a shelter of any kind doesn't mean you're going to get government funding. There are plenty of shelters for men who are homeless for whatever reason.

Here you can walk into the local CLSC and get a referral to a shelter for abused men.

Unfortunately, to many SJWs seem to think that feminism isn't just about equality. They're just the latest iteration of that transphobic nutbar Germaine Greer. Bra-burning was never the way to achieve equality, just sensationalist attention-grabbing that took away from the real issues, same as SJWs today are more of a distraction than they're worth.

"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, sounds pretty Marxist to me.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism ultimately *is* socialism.

And since men are net contributors to social services via taxes, and women are net recipients of social services -- women now extract from men via legislation what they used to extract via marriage. ... And women wonder why men have picked up their ball and left the game.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[Rockoon]

I'm sure the feminists will find a way to spin this so that its the fathers fault.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[popo]

I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.

Including women ... https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t...

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[Rockoon]

I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.

Because half of slashdotters lose their god damned minds as soon as the belief system that they put only shallow thought in proves to be completely irrational even at a shallow level.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[St.Creed]

And since men are net contributors to social services via taxes, and women are net recipients of social services -- women now extract from men via legislation what they used to extract via marriage. ... And women wonder why men have picked up their ball and left the game

The reason that was modded down was *probably* because gross generalizations usually don't get much bonus points for being insightful. Especially when it's also a case of blaming the victim. Just look at the history of how women were forcibly removed from the labour force after WW2. I'm sure some didn't mind, but others did. Like my mother, who really wanted to hold her job, but was automatically fired when she married. And if you factor in the fact that women get paid less for the same work, the picture is even worse.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[sonicmerlin]

Hmm I never thought of the social services argument. That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[LostMyBeaver]

The year is 2015... calling women victims is a gross generalization. Men and women are each thoroughly capable of being supreme assholes. Women get paid less on average for many reasons. Applying some common generalizations which contribute :
  1) Women tend to want to be rewarded and recognized for their achievements and hard work.
  2) Men typically will make moving a pencil look like a 4 person task they did all by themselves.
  3) Women do their jobs without advertising to the universe they did.
  4) Men place billboard advertisements on their bosses street to brag that they did what they were being paid to do and it's time for a bonus.
  5) Women are far less likely to counter-offer a job offer than a man.
  6) Women will refuse on principle to sell their souls to get a raise. Men will beg and grovel if they think it will work.
  7) Women will wait for raises, men will calculate the opportune moment to ask for one and spring it.

It's not a mans world because of misogyny. Men are paid more because daddy taught us the principles don't mean shit if they inhibit putting food on the table. There is only one reason why women don't get paid the same as men. :

    Asshole bosses who love the power of being in charge of your life. It seems the only way of expressing their manly dominance is to try and put their penis to work. Men can joke with other men about blow jobs... with a woman, it's harassment. So how can that loser express his dominance and feel the power without crossing lines? Remember, there's a good chance he had to yield to the supreme manliness of someone else to get there.

Re:"Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[david_thornley]

Men make more money than women, so it would be reasonable to expect them to pay more taxes. One reason women tend to earn less is that they are more involved in bearing and raising children, which is essential and mostly unpaid work.

As far as social services, which ones are you referring to? I'd suspect that a lot of that is welfare for single mothers, and there's reasons for that. Typically, the father is a lot more likely to abandon the child than the mother is, and it's hard to earn a lot of money as a single mother with a young child.

Re: "Google feels that reeducation is necessary."

[Ororo]

With that comment, I'd think you'd want to encourage women into STEM fields so they make more money. Maybe they would need less from social services if they had more earning power. Besides being motivated by competition vs cooperation, men and women learn differently, and I can't help but wonder if a different approach might encourage them more, especially if it was done earlier. The forcing of girls into traditional American gender roles starts with the first time someone puts her in a pink outfit. Then come the dolls and the kitchen sets and the praise for being pretty vs being say, smart or athletic. Being told to be demure and "ladylike" (I so hate that word). It happens with boys too. Blue outfits, praise for being tough, conflating manhood with physical prowess. By the time kids hit ten, a whole lot of them have been socialized to fit into narrow roles and it's too late to get them interested in topics outside traditional roles. I'm not saying every parent does this. If you look at what toys are for sale and what kids choose for college majors, you can get a good idea.

And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism is a belief system. The primary tenet of this belief system is that men and women have on average, exactly the same brains, interests, capacities, goals, desires and approaches to work.

This tenet is absurd and provably false. ...But logic and feminism have never mixed anyway.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[ShanghaiBill]

This tenet is absurd and provably false.

I coach an after school program in robotics and programming at my local elementary school, and I agree that this is baloney. The parents are pushing hard for their girls to pursue tech, and it is the girls themselves that are disinterested. We have tried many things to keep girls in the program. I recruited an engineer mom as a co-coach to provide a role model. We let the girls form "all-girl" teams, so they can use more collaborative teamwork, and consensus decision making, which they feel more comfortable with, rather than the hierarchical teams that is natural to boys. But we still got only a few girls to sign up this year, and most of those only signed up because of parental pressure, and half of them dropped out when the try-outs for the school play were announced. It is very frustrating, and I don't know what the solution is, but blaming the parents is hogwash. I don't see that at all.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Em Adespoton]

The real takeaway from their research seemed to be the bit about promoting CS as a vehicle for social change / making a difference / getting noticed.

Out of curiosity, what is the goal of the after school program? Is it just to build neat things, or are their goals or competitions associated with it?

In your case, it's competing with the school play, which enables the girls to be the focus of an entire audience with much applause. It has weeks/months of buildup with ads in the school and community. It has a number of accessible topics that people who aren't in the play can take part in, and it has a hierarchy (their girls don't like hierarchy thing is pure hogwash) where different people can get "better" and "worse" parts in the play, as well as default exclusivity (not everyone can play the leading roles). It also enables them to communicate under the guise of a fictional character. Beyond this, it likely involves a bit of fundraising and some costume building/time sunk in by parents where they're forced to spend time with their daughters helping them prepare.

I bet if you set up the after school program to check off all those qualities, you'd get girls flocking to it and the play would become a distant second. Maybe have an end-of-year project that encorporates what they've been doing all year, and the resulting "performance" goes up on youtube? Have some "milestones" throughout the year that they can share with friends in the same way? Create some sort of plot arc that can grab their imaginations?

You may already be doing all this, but it's what has always made school plays popular with the girls.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Women who can, do. Women who can't become feminists.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[lgw]

Or, just maybe, we could teach children of both sexes that it's a harsh fucking world out there, and if you don't learn the skills needed for a good job, your life will suck forever. No? Well, the social pendulum will swing back that way eventually, from the opposite extreme we're at now, and once that happens you won't need much to get everyone interested in fields that pay really well, and won't be displaced by automation.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

That might help the after school program, but it wouldn't do anything to hook girls into engineering long-term. Engineering is a thankless, background job, where the most interaction you are going to get from customers is likely to be getting stuck in an on-call rotation.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[LifesABeach]

It sure as hell couldn't be the 3 million plus H1B-heads that were harvested else where and dumped in this country?

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[naasking]

I coach an after school program in robotics and programming at my local elementary school, and I agree that this is baloney. The parents are pushing hard for their girls to pursue tech, and it is the girls themselves that are disinterested.

This is only a meaningful data point if you can demonstrate that such families aren't already biased towards selecting for parents more interested in tech careers.

I rather think it's quite biased towards such parents. After all, why would you be hearing from parents not interested in tech for their daughters? So your ancedote wouldn't be meaningful in the face of rigourous data (assuming Google's study has such data).

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[sonicmerlin]

Why is western society so obsessed with proving the idea that men and women are exactly alike? That doesn't even make evolutionary sense.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that companies don't really pay that well for the labour, skills, experience, talent and education necessary to succeed in IT. Heck, they're doing everything they can to make it suck even more every f.... year.

If someone want to succeed getting girls interested, they'll need to solve this conundrum:
Why would girls want to sit in front of a computer for hours on end, sometimes, even evenings and work also on weekends in order to launch etc.?

No? Well, that's what companies expect these days, for no extra pay. And thus, most real grunt work is outsourced to countries that don't mind slaves and are happy to fuck over their environment and we get stuck in paperwork and skyping with non-native speakers trying to understand why their solution sucks so much.

You can get girls interested in art-work, social happenings, social whatever, as long as it's really social. Coding and IT is just not that interesting to the majority of girls no matter what you do to change their programmed gene behaviours. Mind, I've met excellent women coders. They're good because they're more sociable, which is an important trait. However, they're far from the normal average of the masses of women out there.

Heck, even my mom had BASIC courses sometime. But you just don't see women flocking to IT, even though they've been exposed to it. Maybe we're different beings after all? *cough* *cough*

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[gizmo2199]

Yeah, it just seems to me that girls are under a lot of peer pressure to pursue social, status-raising activities. Sitting in front of a PC hammering-away Java for 5 hours a day isn't very glamorous, exciting, or social, and there's the "nerd" stigma associated with it.

Even women who are naturally inclined to pursue Comp Sci or engineering do so to pursue careers in finance or business, and make more money, not necessarily because they love computers. And moreover women who are employed by tech-companies usually work in the non-technical areas, like PR, marketing, sales, etc.

If Google wants more women in tech, they should make coding (a solitary and unglamorous pursuit) look cool, exciting, and socially positive. Maybe they need a Java Camel.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[lgw]

The problem with this is that companies don't really pay that well for the labour, skills, experience, talent and education necessary to succeed in IT.

"IT" is a crap career no one should enter. Answering calls on the helpdesk? No thanks - well, better than starving, but so are a lot of things. But we were talking about software development

Why would girls want to sit in front of a computer for hours on end, sometimes, even evenings and work also on weekends in order to launch etc.?

Check out the hours lawyers work, or the oncall duties as a surgeon (or a vet - but dentists, that's the job!). It's not the hours that's the problem, it's the lack of dignity of the profession. When the field was doubling every few years, that meant most software developers were in their 20s, and management could get away with treating all of us like college students. My work environment is more like a dorm room or college lab than a professional office environment - that's what we need to push back against.

As far as pay, after your first 5 or so years in the field, jobs that pay well are there for the taking, though you may need to move to where the work is. If you're past your apprenticeship in the field and you're not making at least 1.5x the national median income, you're likely at a bottom-tier employer: shop around. While we may top out lower than the doctors and lawyers, they don't hit peak earning potential until later in life - a doctor or dentist is typically in his 40s before lifetime earnings net of school costs put him ahead of a plumber or other skilled tradesman.

Personally, I think many women are put off by the limited social interaction involved in the job, or at least that's my theory for why so many female software developers choose career advancement into management or product management over the dev tech track.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Grishnakh]

I think you're ignoring the aspect of social standing and prestige here. Plays are a big part of American culture at that age, and acting is a highly prestigious vocation in our society. A-list actors make huge amounts of money. It's the same with sports: school sports has a huge amount of prestige, and again leads to a highly respected and prestigious vocation with enormous pay. Women's sports has little to no prestige, but female actors like Julia Roberts are extremely well-paid, so while little boys pursue football, little girls (and some little boys) pursue theater.

Of course, these professions also have an enormous drop-out rate: for every superstar raking in big bucks, there's thousands upon thousands of others who end up waiting tables to make ends meet, and eventually drop out (and there's a bunch of B-listers who make OK pay but nothing spectacular). But every little kid in our society is taught to follow their dreams, no matter what the odds, because all our movies show stories of people who do just that and succeed, despite all the odds against them, and live happily in lavish lifestyles.

A robotics program isn't very attractive to kids because it doesn't lead to a career with lavish pay. No one is going to be a billionaire working as an engineer at some corporate job. So why should kids pursue it?

Some little boys pursue it: these are the boys who aren't cut out for sports or acting. They're generally introverted and not so social, and they're smart enough to realize that those career paths are foolhardy unless you really are super-talented. Those are the boys who go into coding or robotics programs. Little girls don't, because girls are more social than boys, and there's a social stigma attached to anything "nerdy" (even though everyone and his brother has a smartphone now, a direct product of nerds).

I'll bet if you tried an experiment in schools in India and China with kids being able to go into either a coding/robotics program or a school play production, you'd have vastly different results.

In summary, it's the culture, stupid!

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

This tenet is absurd and provably false.

We let the girls form "all-girl" teams, so they can use more collaborative teamwork, and consensus decision making, which they feel more comfortable with, rather than the hierarchical teams that is natural to boys.l.

You are doing it wrong. It is the girls that firms social cliques, they will never agree to include uncool girls into their groups, they want hierarchical teams, boys are more competitive and can more easily operate on a flat structure based on meritocracy.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

why does there need to be a solution? how is it good to force these girls to do something they don't want to?

I can't understand this entire thing, it seems to me to be bullying.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Em Adespoton]

I think you're ignoring the aspect of social standing and prestige here.

The real takeaway from their research seemed to be the bit about promoting CS as a vehicle for social change / making a difference / getting noticed. ... it's competing with the school play, which enables the girls to be the focus of an entire audience with much applause. It has weeks/months of buildup with ads in the school and community. It has a number of accessible topics that people who aren't in the play can take part in, and it has a hierarchy (their girls don't like hierarchy thing is pure hogwash) where different people can get "better" and "worse" parts in the play, as well as default exclusivity (not everyone can play the leading roles).

Perhaps you meant to reply to the parent? It's ALL about the prestige.

I'll bet if you tried an experiment in schools in India and China with kids being able to go into either a coding/robotics program or a school play production, you'd have vastly different results.

Exactly, although your country choices are bad: India has Bollywood, and China has a system where only the "perfect" people get the acting/TV jobs. The positions have the same prestige as in the US. However, going to pretty much any country in Africa and setting up this experiment could have very interesting results...

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's a harsh fucking world out there, and if you don't learn the skills needed for a good job, your life will suck forever...

There are vast differences between countries. North and South Korea are good examples for people who like to claim that the differences are all due to race, culture, religion, etc. But people in South Korea and other "successful" Asian countries aren't all that happy.

So better examples would be to compare the happiest countries in the world (e.g. the Scandinavian socialist countries) to countries countries that are clearly dysfunctional - but not in the middle of a civil war. Myself, I'm familiar with Southeast Asia, so Indonesia and the Philippines would be good examples. But there are lots of dysfunctional countries all over the world.

Anyway, the point is that someone growing up in, say, Denmark will be very likely to have a secure comfortable life even if they make some mistakes and don't try all that hard. On the other hand, someone growing up in, say, Indonesia, will be very likely to remain trapped in poverty even if they try really hard and don't make any mistakes. Life in Denmark is a positive sum game - most people are winners. While life in Indonesia is a negative sum game - most people are losers.

Obviously a person's individual effort and judgement do matter. But so do government policies. It's useful to think about what a person can do as an individual to increase their chances of having a secure comfortable life. But it's also useful to think about what governments can do to increase everyone's chances of having secure comfortable lives.

Good government matters.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

software dev pays well, but compare the pay to those of the fields you compared it to. All of them make significantly more than software devs do. Friend of mine, his wife is a dentist, she's pulling in nearly 300k a year. Another friend has a brother that's a loan officer, holy crap does that guy get paid. Lawyers, holy shit. And all of those fields require similar levels of skill and expertise to software dev. By far and away, we're some of the worst paid for what we do.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Ol Olsoc]

I coach an after school program in robotics and programming at my local elementary school, and I agree that this is baloney. The parents are pushing hard for their girls to pursue tech, and it is the girls themselves that are disinterested. We have tried many things to keep girls in the program. I recruited an engineer mom as a co-coach to provide a role model. We let the girls form "all-girl" teams, so they can use more collaborative teamwork, and consensus decision making, which they feel more comfortable with, rather than the hierarchical teams that is natural to boys. But we still got only a few girls to sign up this year, and most of those only signed up because of parental pressure, and half of them dropped out when the try-outs for the school play were announced. It is very frustrating, and I don't know what the solution is, but blaming the parents is hogwash. I don't see that at all.

Its been my experience also, although your's is much more in depth than mine. The young ladies by and large are not interested.

People seem to look at this as a situation where something is keeping women out of STEM. Yes, it's the young women themselves. They are not interested.

Any young lady that wishes to get into science and technology should be encouraged and supported.

Any young lady that wants to go into other career should also be encouraged and supported.

My experience, especially with the sons and daughters of STEM people, just teaches me that even in a seriously supportive environment, if those young ladies don't want to get into STEM, it's an impossible task, unless you start forcing them into it.

And last time I checked, gender equality was not about forcing women into living their life in a manner other than what they wished. Wasn't that what women were trying to escape from?

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Grishnakh]

India has Bollywood, yes, but Indians seem to have a much more realistic grasp of what career paths are actually feasible and which aren't. Of course, there's also a huge number of middle-class (for India) Indians, since their population is enormous. Finally, I've never heard of sports being a big thing in India. They have cricket of course, but I don't think it's like the sports-mania we have here in the US.

China, having an authoritarian government, probably does things to strongly discourage too many people from wasting their time on dead-end career paths like acting. Here in the US, it's easy to get student loans or even scholarships to go to college for theater. I knew a girl who did this not that long ago; she had a full-ride scholarship, and what did she blow it on? Theater. Did she get a job in theater? Nope; she moved towards make-up and costumes in her senior year thinking that would be a more realistic career path, graduated, and ended up working at a hotel in customer service. A complete waste of a degree. I wouldn't be surprised to find that China doesn't allow silliness like this with student loans or other public funding.

As for Africa, that's hard to say, because Africa has no industry at all to speak of. I can't imagine that software engineering has much prestige there because people probably can't think much beyond life in a mud hut. Even if you go to South Africa or one of the Arabic northern countries, there's not much industry there either, and not much employment for programmers.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Ol Olsoc]

I coach an after school program in robotics and programming at my local elementary school, and I agree that this is baloney. The parents are pushing hard for their girls to pursue tech, and it is the girls themselves that are disinterested.

This is only a meaningful data point if you can demonstrate that such families aren't already biased towards selecting for parents more interested in tech careers.

I rather think it's quite biased towards such parents. After all, why would you be hearing from parents not interested in tech for their daughters? So your ancedote wouldn't be meaningful in the face of rigourous data (assuming Google's study has such data).

Mine was similar to his, and it was largly sones and daughters of Engineers and Scientists and other STEM workers.

Not that my experience or his matters to you. Something tells me though, that you are 100 percent proficient in rejecting any data that doesn't support your worldview.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Pubstar]

You mean "Women who can't, become Gender Studies and Communications majors"

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[KGIII]

I am retired. My brother isn't, He is a Master Plumber, not even self-employed, and making $35 an hour - in Maine.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Taco Cowboy]

It is very frustrating, and I don't know what the solution is, but blaming the parents is hogwash. I don't see that at all

Shanghai Bill, I have read a lot of the comments you post on /. and I gotta say that they are very balanced and informative

Okay, regarding this 'blame the parent' piece from Google there is nothing to understand --- What Google is trying to do, and in fact, what TPTB has been trying to do to all of us is to impart a sense of 'powerlessness' so that we, collectively, will have to ask them (aka TPTB) for help, to solve our powerlessness

It's just another brick on the wall, so to speak --- the entire thing is structured, piece by piece, to make us feel useless, make us feel that we essentially can't accomplish anything on our own

You see, first, they blame the "male-dominated society" for 'discouraging' the girls from participating in the tech

Then they set up programs exclusively for girls to 'learn the tech', as if to show us --- the male portion of the society, that they are taking power away from us

And to further gaining ground, they are accusing the parents for failing their girls

It's all part of the psy-ops that they are running against the citizens --- designed specifically to enhance their dominance over us, the people

Shanghai Bill, you have spent quite a lot of years outside of USA, your time away from the US enables you to see things from another perspective

And I, originally from China, came to America as a young refugee, also comes equipped with the ability to analyse the American phenomenon, with both the view of an outsider as well as that of an insider

What I am seeing in America, since my arrival in the early 1970's, is the increasing power of TPTB, and their overbearing dominance over the populace

Right now, as we speak, TPTB's plan is in their final stage --- their aim being turning the American society, a society supposed to be based on freedom and liberty, in to a society in which TPTB will become an essential part, a part in which the society can't exist without

That is why they are doing what they are doing

Unfortunately most of the Americans can't see what's going on

I hope you can see what I am seeing, Shanghai Bill

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[KGIII]

Female porn stars make more than male porn stars too. We need some SJWs to get on that.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[KGIII]

Where are you working that you only pound on Java for five hours a day? It's Java, you can not spend three hours a day claiming it is compiling...

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[KGIII]

I will support NOW when I see them outside the courthouse protesting that women get shorter sentences and lighter punishments in the legal system. Until then they are frauds.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[kuzb]

Even when you have the skills for a good job, you learn quite rapidly that the job you land can suck pretty hard. Worse, you wind up playing employment hopscotch for quite some time trying to find a job that doesn't suck. The moral? Be prepared to be disappointed by your chosen career. Unless you're one of the blessed few, it's not going to be roses and sunshine.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[lgw]

software dev pays well, but compare the pay to those of the fields you compared it to. All of them make significantly more than software devs do. Friend of mine, his wife is a dentist, she's pulling in nearly 300k a year

Yes, dentists are well paid - eventually - but they start earning late, a few years after a software dev, they have a much larger school debt to pay off, and just like a software dev, the early years don't pay so well.

You can't just look at peak earning power, but at lifetime earnings at a given age, and it takes a long, long time for a dentist or doctor to pull ahead. BTW, you can certainly make $300k as a software dev at a big company - that's common for tech track paygrades equivalent to a second-level manager at the big names. Of course, there are far fewer such positions than there are dentists in America, and for someone capable of both I'd recommend dentistry, but the gap isn't as big as you might think.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty massive sample bias there, seeing as every single parent who sends their kids there will be one actively encouraging it.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[bbelt16ag]

hmm, did you poll the girls and see what the issue was? ask the parents? i would even venture to get an insider female child to see if they can get shine light on what the deal was.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[bbelt16ag]

See? Em is saying it all.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[juanfgs]

"Why should there even be a "solution"?"

Because we're a progressive world, where we successfully freed women from the oppresion of having a nice household, a partner who takes cares of them, and pursuing the ultimate biological goal of reproduction. Now they can enjoy being forced into being competitive just as men are. Remember girls, now you have to earn the right to use your womb now, better get working because you'll need the money in case you decide to unfreeze your eggs and have a baby a couple of years before your retirement.

So better get into engineering even if you don't like it because babies are fucking expensive now! Uh? you don't like it? well that's because your internalized patriarchy doesn't let you think straight you silly girl.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no socialist countries in Scandinavia or the nordic.. The nordic model is more like e the sensible middle ground between full blown socialism and capitalism

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[sublayer]

Yes, dentists are well paid - eventually - but they start earning late, a few years after a software dev, they have a much larger school debt to pay off, and just like a software dev, the early years don't pay so well.

... and they have to spend their working lives peering into people's mouths. I've never understood why anyone would choose that as a career (unless the money is really good).

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[AK Marc]

Any programmer not in meetings for 3 hours a day is going to build the wrong thing.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, just maybe, we could teach children of both sexes that it's a harsh fucking world out there, and if you don't learn the skills needed for a good job, your life will suck forever.

The fundamental difference is that this is more true for men, and less true for women. A man without a good job will have trouble finding a partner, and will have to take a crappy job to support himself. A woman without a good job can still find a partner with a good job - and even if not, if she gets pregnant and has a child, the state will look after her.

With such a difference in motivation, and assuming equal ability, is it any surprise we see such a difference in outcomes?

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[umghhh]

As for limited social interaction in software jobs - in most of the projects I worked for, the limited social interaction was a reason why they were over budget, over schedule and wobbling on quality.
The only thing worse that limited social interaction in a software project is too much BS-ing sessions called also meetings that nobody prepares for so that they take hours and do not even bring a relief that a coursing session at the coffee machine brings.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[umghhh]

That is exaggerated. Software development still pays well. It does not pay as well as it did, not for anybody that has enough ability as it used to be say 30ya but still. The problem that is there for sure is that this ability being mostly in our heads means one can hire such head elsewhere as long as communication is possible. This makes for much intense global competition than it used to. Plus the automation of 'a plumber' is still decades off and automation of your skill is maybe a year or two ahead of you. There are also other factors. 'Plumber' jobs flow steadily in any big enough population center. Software jobs tend to move from one center of population to another much easier than anything else - this makes it difficult for all but stars among us to have a normal family life.
I would still make the same choice at the end of my university. I would however made some other career choice along the way involving investment in own managing capabilities and better choice of procreation partner. It is too late now so I have to live with what I have. If my kids ever want to be software monkeys - so be it. I will be there I hope to support them in whatever problems they encounter. Good plumber is possibly better than good software developer. This said good lawyer is maybe better than good plumber? One thing is certain - the way our societies go a massive change is under way. Wealth is being redistributed again and google - that is somehow related to the subject of these threads is doing part of redistributing. A task for you - do you think it is distributing it within your own local society or it helps the flow in one direction? It is not only google - many platforms graze everywhere and cash in in cayman islands. But that is another story.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[swillden]

Friend of mine, his wife is a dentist, she's pulling in nearly 300k a year.

I make better than 300K per year as a software developer, when you include base, bonus and stock grants (which I view as variable cash bonuses, since I have them sold automatically the instant they vest). And I don't have to stick my fingers in peoples' mouths.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that one certainly could make $300k, I disagree that many, even with 20 years of experience, make $300k.

In fact, when the average CIO doesn't break $200k, exactly why do you think that the $300k software jobs are out there? I have worked for three of the "big companies" and none of them have a software guy on staff that's pulling in $300k. Maybe J.P.Morgan would pay an investment manager that, but a software guy? Not unless he's living in New York and the division manager's soon-to-be son-in-law.

I agree with the "peak earning power" assessment. It's the area under the curve that counts. I just think you're off your rocker about the figure, especially when very seasoned people are only making (on average) $130k.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[2fuf]

> It is very frustrating, and I don't know what the solution is

It's probably more frustrating to all the girl you're trying to push into a career they're not interested in.
Stop forcing your will onto people! Let them develop their own lives!

The fact someone chooses another career path than what you had in mind for them is NOT a problem.

Crazy Americans trying to 'cure' gays and force girls to program.
Bunch of fascist brain washers!

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[BlueStrat]

"Why should there even be a "solution"?"

Because we're a progressive world, where we successfully freed women from the oppresion of having a nice household, a partner who takes cares of them, and pursuing the ultimate biological goal of reproduction. Now they can enjoy being forced into being competitive just as men are. Remember girls, now you have to earn the right to use your womb now, better get working because you'll need the money in case you decide to unfreeze your eggs and have a baby a couple of years before your retirement.

So better get into engineering even if you don't like it because babies are fucking expensive now! Uh? you don't like it? well that's because your internalized patriarchy doesn't let you think straight you silly girl.

Obviously the only real solution is to force all children to be taken at birth to be raised and educated in government-run facilities until the age of majority, safe from bad parenting decisions and dangerous political/ideological ideas. /s

I felt the need for the '/s' sarc tag, as there are actually a number of people, some in positions of power, who would take the above as a given, that children belong to the State first and parents second.

Strat

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a big finance software company in New York. Even for them 250k+ is considered very expensive, though they do have a handful of people that are paid that much. Only the best of the best though.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to put a square peg into a round hole is also very frustrating.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[T.E.D.]

Personally, I think many women are put off by the limited social interaction involved in the job, or at least that's my theory

That turns out to be a myth. Personality test results show women just as likely to score as introverts as men. In fact, in most axis' they are nearly identical. Where they are different (at least on the Meyers-Briggs terminology) is in preference for Thinking vs. Feeling. That's obviously applicable to Engineering.

However, the effect isn't huge. Nowhere is it even 2:1. This is nothing at all like what you'd need to explain the kind of sexual disparity one actually sees in the industry.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[cyber-vandal]

Not everyone is a fit parent. Should we just abandon those kids? What about vaccination which has saved countless lives? Should we return to the good old days of whooping cough and tuberculosis epidemics? It's not a black and white "government bad" situation.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[NotDrWho]

Too many people want the world to be what they believe it to be, not what it actually is. They're angry that the world stubbornly refuses to conform to their own delusions.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[geminidomino]

Because, about 60 years ago, Cornell had the brilliant idea to offer a degree in "Women's Studies", so that college could be both expensive *and* useless. The recipients thereof have since spent better than half a century driving the point that a vagina is a suitable substitute for competence.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[geminidomino]

There also aren't any feminists...in burning buildings.

If the universe's well-noted sense of irony holds out, there may soon be.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Some little boys pursue it: these are the boys who aren't cut out for sports or acting. They're generally introverted and not so social, and they're smart enough to realize that those career paths are foolhardy unless you really are super-talented.

uhhh... you're saying the only reason I like programming is that I weighed up the pros and cons of all the other stuff, saw that it wasn't for me, and then fell back on computers as a last resort?

then you are pathetic and not a natural-born computer person.

I'd choose the computer job for reasons similar to the ones you gave... but the avocational interest in computers? it's inborn. and that other stuff is as boring as fuck to me.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism is a belief system. The primary tenet of this belief system is that men and women have on average, exactly the same brains, interests, capacities, goals, desires and approaches to work.

Citation please. You don't get to redefine what feminism then build your arguments around that false definition.

Feminism is the observation that men and women are not afforded the same opportunities. And that the opportunities that are afforded primarily to women are typically valued less by our society.

But if we want to start from a rather basic definition, we can open a dictionary and argue from there:
feminism, n: A social theory or political movement which argues that legal and social restrictions on women must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life.

I suspect your mistake is thinking that equality means that people have the same capacity or talent. Those aspects are not relevant to social equality. (and smell a bit of ableism)

We'll dig deeper into a dictionary,
equality, n: The equal treatment of people irrespective of social or cultural differences.

Yea, I admit it might be harder to connect the dots here given the brief dictionary definitions. But it's not like one post on slashdot has room to educate you fully on the subject. But the important point, in my opinion, on the definition of equality are the words irrespective and equal treatment. It does not state that you can substitute one person for another in any situation, it does not say the capabilities of one person is identical to another. No, this is about treatment. I used the word opportunity above, but the two are very much related. I chose opportunity because it is a bit easier for people to grasp the importance, where as the word treatment tends to imply that people just have hurt feelings about someone's behavior.

Do women bring home a lower wage on average because they often take short term jobs, more likely to work a part time job or put their careers on hold to raise children? Yes.
Do women make less because there is a deep problem in our society that expect women to behave in a non-aggressive way for them to be palatable enough to hire, but at the same time we sometimes reward aggressive attitudes with promotions and hiring bonuses? Also yes.

The issue is complex. (I can look up citation if you want, the points above are more of an example of the complexity rather than trying to prove any particular point on the subject)

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. Why do boys still come ?

Making robotics class like school play, whatever that means and assuming it works, is just going to fool girls into taking the class and dropping out later, when they look at the jobs and realize it's no theater.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[captjc]

For some, some of us would love to see more equality in the workplace. As an engineer, I would love to see more women, this place is a sausagefest. Ideally, most jobs should have a ratio comparative with the population at large, that fact that coders and engineers are fairly well paid (well, except me) makes it even more important for generally equal representation.

However, I am also convinced that much of this is a bunch of rich assholes who see the 70-cents-on-the-dollar statistic and say, we need to hire some more of these cheap women, only to find that there aren't that many in the field. Same with the push to get the markets saturated with cheap coders any way they can so they can systematically lower the pay of programmers in general.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Em Adespoton]

Boys would still come for the same reason they always did. And some girls would drop out later, but this is an after-school program, and you only get to show off if you make it to the end.

As for "it's no theater," well, neither is theater. A much higher percentage of people who go into robotics get high paying rewarding jobs that make a difference than people who go into theater. This message however, isn't really promoted at the school level in anything but words (and rarely even with words).

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[lgw]

fact, when the average CIO doesn't break $200k

CIO is an "IT" Job. That's a shitty career, but we were discussing software development. But if you work for Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, VMware, probably just as many big names I've forgotten, there is a technical track that leads there in the second half of your career. Those jobs are quite rare so far, as so few devs are over 40 still, and will likely never be more than the top 5% (of the few who can make it in those companies to begin with), but still, it is a path. I know people in that pay grade at 4 of those companies.

Of course in banking, you have to be deep into investment banking or a quant to make good money, and just like being an ER doc: no matter how good the pay is, you won't do it for long.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even women who are naturally inclined to pursue Comp Sci or engineering do so to pursue careers in finance or business, and make more money, not necessarily because they love computers"

Your citation for this startling "fact"? I got interested in computers because I got interested in computers. Yes, LOVED them. From the first time I set eyes on an IBM PC at work in the 1980s, I thought it was the coolest thing ever, and even moreso when I learned how to write code that would make a computer do something. (As it happened, the first computer I could acquire for myself came from a work friend and was a Mac, and then I found out that a personal computer could also mean HyperCard and printable pictures, so in other words, even cooler. But I was equally in love with database programming and batch files.)

So I guess that makes me "naturally inclined", just devoid of opportunities until PC's came into my workplace.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[phorm]

Finally, I've never heard of sports being a big thing in India. They have cricket of course, but I don't think it's like the sports-mania we have here in the US.

HA! You might want to think again on that. Cricket is a big deal to many in India. Maybe they don't have the fireworks and cheerleaders of a US football game, but there's still a huge passion for the sport.

I still remember two of my co-workers coming in looking like they'd both been drinking all night long (neither consumes alcohol) and then hit by a truck... because they were up all night watching the India-Pakistan cricket match.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[BlueStrat]

Not everyone is a fit parent.

See, that's the problem. There is disagreement among large numbers of people on exactly what the definition of "fit parent" is, who gets to decide what that definition is, and how it is interpreted/implemented/enforced, and if government even has the power under the Constitution to be involved at all.

Strat

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

The only valid definition of a fit parent: A person or institution (called the "parent") that is capable of maximizing the minimum happiness of a person (that is currently not deem worthy of adulthood by the parent) throughout their entire life.

So, for example, if you have a child that grows up to be a drug addict, you were not a fit parent for that child.

Furthermore, this would adequately cover people with mental or physical disabilities.

I put a tremendous as amount of thought into this definition. I think it is the best logically possible response to the question "What is a fit parent?". Note: I did not specify how to measure or estimate the minimum happiness in a person's life. That is a separate question that would need to be addressed.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are not seeing the problem, you are not looking and as a coach are contributing to the problem. I have a 9 year old daughter who is great in math and starting to pick up programming on her own. I being an IT guy and current programmer, am encouraging this. Problem is threefold, first dealing with coaches that ignore the problem. Second, dealing with moms with comments like "girls don't get math and science". There is only one girl in her grade in the local club.

Last, what is popular in beginning robotics, Lego Mindstorm and the set is geared towards boys. My daughter loves legos but usually girl oriented sets. Because the educational set is more gender neutral, we are looking into this as an option, forking out the cash ourselves. Oh, and when she tells her friends about this this, they are asking to join the "group" No it is not about lack of interest. It is about girls who want to have their friends involved and not feel the outsider. Plus, don't want to deal with coaches who don't think they should be there in the first place.

A second point, I've been in higher Ed IT for 26 years. My first job, 1/2 the IT staff were women and they were top notch. In the CS program, less than 1/2 but still considerable. As time went by, women retired and replaced by men. Women in CS went down so less availability. However, still in Ed environment in a upper end university, a lot of Asians coming onto campus and a lot more women in CS/IT programs. Unlike US, they are heavily steeped in math and the sciences and have not had to deal with stereo types that IT is an exclusive boys only club. I know one woman Sysadmin, cut her teeth as a teen hacking Cisco gear, top knotch Window admin and security professional, finishing a robotics degree at CMU. Should pass your comment along to her, sure she would ROFL.

So please, change your horrible attitude or stop coaching.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

You're responding, but you're not reading. Wrapping robotics in theater to attract girls who like theater is going to blow up the moment they realize it's not. It's not going to get to the high paying rewarding jobs, because to get there you need experience with "real" stuff and realizing that dead end will be a rude awakening

If all that makes you interested in chemistry is making kitchen goo and colored smoke and liquids, you're nowhere near a track for a job in chemistry.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[happy_place]

I have four daughters. I've pushed and pushed and prodded and supported their every Engineering and Computer Science interest, and it has led to nothing. It's been very frustrating. I had two daughters attempt to join the Robotics club at the local high school. They get straight A's, and have excelled in other sciences, but computer science has been a real turn off. The school wins a lot. They're probably the top in the state, and there is a fair smattering of girls in the class. What we found was that the teams were already full of "experts" and there was very little teamwork and at the time no adults were really considering lower level interests because it's all centered around competition. It just wasn't going to be fun unless you'd already been playing with legos since you were six, or had shoe-horned your way into the team by some kind of assertiveness that wasn't within my girl's level of interest. There was no one to encourage people who had NO experience at all, or who just wanted to have fun with it. Ironically, I find this same issue in the Computer Science based work-force--so often the team revolves around the star programmer(s) (sometimes called developers) and everyone else plays support to them. The developers are so busy and focused on the competition and rewards that they don't train or support general expertise. I still hold out hope that my girls will at least take a few CS classes and see if they can stomach the egos and the know-it-alls, and the folks who tell you "Oh this is SO EASY!" and hand you a 5 million line open source project with no documentation and tell you to make it better...

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Em Adespoton]

Oh, I'm definitely reading. Wrapping robotics in theater to attract girls who like theater is going to do nothing to show girls what working in the robotics field is like.

What it IS going to do is expose them to the possibility of doing such a thing, in an environment that is familiar to them. Only a small number of those girls will go anywhere with it, but a few, once exposed, will become fascinated with what is possible.

This is exactly the same with the boys. Most boys I know who join robotics groups do it because of video games they've played or cool toys they've played with. Then they get into the nitty gritty of servo mechanics and AI programming, and discover it's actually a LOT of work, and the first things you produce are nothing like Gundam Wing.

So in reality, you're not wrapping robotics (or anything else) in theater to attract people who like theater, you're changing the student body perception of the program itself so that more people might be willing to try it out and stick with it long enough for it to be rewarding -- even when there are other "quick social win" programs out there that it's competing with.

Robotics and programming can be fun and fascinating -- they can also be very dry and boring. Maths are the same way; introduce mathematical concepts in the right way, and they're tools to do something great -- introduce them the wrong way and they become this bit of useless knowledge that accomplishes nothing useful.

If all that makes you interested in chemistry is making kitchen goo and colored smoke and liquids, that's enough to get you interested and start learning about chemistry fundamentals. We're talking kids who are 10-14 here -- they don't know what they're allowed to want to do at this point, and are nowhere near a track for a job in ANY profession.

Once the smoke clears, a few kids who joined a chemistry club because they wanted to learn how to make mustard gas and smoke/stink bombs will discover they can do much more, and much more rewarding things, and it's worth the effort. The majority will graduate from highschool and go into a profession or education track that has nothing to do with being a chemist.

And yeah; I'm a case in point for all of these. In highschool I used to "sign out" chemicals from the chem supply room at the school and create all sorts of compounds on my own time, just because I thought it was neat. As a result, I understand the basics of chemistry and can make many basic compounds from scratch, including substituting when needed. And I know how to do it safely. But I'm no chemist, and have no interest in a job in chemistry.

Programming I got into because my elementary school needed some software to perform a specific task, and I had some spare time and thought I'd see how you make something like that happen. Completely self-driven, and I doubt anyone today or then recalls/cares that it was actually me who developed that software for my school.

So from those two examples, I prove your point: attracted by fancy chemistry experiments, I never went into chemistry. Attracted by solving a problem and playing around with some expensive machinery, I got hooked on computer programming.

But I'm sure glad I had that exposure to chemistry, and I'd probably be better at my job today if there'd been a fun club working on computer projects instead of just me and the school secretary who even touched a computer.

In fact, at one point I actually taught a math/computer "club"/class to elementary school kids -- all boys. Even with them, what really got them learning the hard stuff was giving them rewarding problems to solve that resulted in something they could share with others who might not understand exactly what they were learning.

Along these lines, I remember back in the 90's encountering people who mentioned that they'd built their own computers. At first I was in awe -- having years of knowledge of how computers are made, I couldn't imagine someone making an ENTIRE computer. Then I r

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[imidan]

I knew a girl who did this not that long ago; she had a full-ride scholarship, and what did she blow it on? Theater. Did she get a job in theater? Nope; she moved towards make-up and costumes in her senior year thinking that would be a more realistic career path, graduated, and ended up working at a hotel in customer service. A complete waste of a degree.

But is it really a complete waste of a degree? Is four-year college only valuable as a vocational program, or might there be advantages to general education, a particular social environment, and so on?

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Grishnakh]

Is it valuable as a life-enriching experience? Sure. Is it worth $100k (or whatever) to do that? No, I don't really think so, especially when someone else is paying.

On top of that, it's not like she knew going into it that her college experience was going to be mostly useless for her future career, and that she was going to end up working in a hotel. She was one of tons of kids who go into that degree program thinking they're going to have a great career in movies or theater, and then don't, just like tons of kids spend all their energy in athletics and then end up with nothing because they didn't make the cut to go into pro sports and end up working at McDonald's.

As for advantages for a particular social environment, I dunno. Are you talking about politicians getting history degrees at Yale and getting where they are because of their social connections there? Maybe that makes some sense for those people who go to such schools, but this girl isn't a politician, she works a low-pay job at a hotel. The state U she went to obviously doesn't give you the social connections that being a member of Skull & Bones does.

If people want to do theater work for fun, there's lots of community theaters looking for volunteers, where you can do that stuff without spending $100k and dedicating 4 years full-time to it. I had a neighbor who did exactly this: she was an actor in her community theater, and her husband helped build sets. I don't think society really has an obligation to pay that kind of money so people can have an enriching life experience, when you can do similar stuff absolutely for free. It's like this for just about anything: there's all kinds of cheap hobbyist stuff out there and volunteer work as well. You don't need to spend $100k to learn things any more. Programs like that, to me, are for people who are so serious about it (and talented enough) they want to do it as a profession.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[imidan]

Yeah, it seems to me that we have done a few things that make young people's lives a bit worse:

First, we have this credential inflation going on, where businesses are requiring four-year degrees for jobs that might have only needed two-year degrees or even just high school just a few decades ago. Being a secretary or file clerk or whatever hasn't become more difficult, but for some reason we now expect applicants to have a degree?

Second, the cost of college has blasted off way above the rate of inflation. Some people say that's because of the availability of education loans, and maybe that's right; I don't know. But the value proposition changes as college becomes more and more ridiculously expensive.

Third, we seem to like to tell kids that they can do whatever they want, be whatever they want to be, and everything in their lives will work out. Realistically, why does my university even offer a BA degree in theatre? It's not a well-known program; there are no well-known professors; there are very few famous graduates. I doubt if 10% of the program's graduates wind up working in theatre.

It is a disservice to our undergrads to represent programs like this as good preparation for a job in their chosen field. But I'd say that as long as we make that clear, that what those students are really getting is bit of socialization and practice at working and managing their lives, combined with a BA degree that may get them past the first cut at HR for a somewhat menial job, then we have warned them enough.

What I'd really like to see is a significant paring down of the diversity of undergraduate degrees. I think there's too much specialization, especially in liberal arts and social sciences (of what practical use is an undergraduate degree in, say, psychology, if one doesn't plan on going to grad school?).

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

"We let the girls form "all-girl" teams, so they can use more collaborative teamwork"

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!

In the real world, they won't be able to say "I want to be on an all-girl team" so I feel better and more collaborative.

No one is stopping girls/women who are interested in tech from pursuing it; enough of these (nonsensical) weekly articles.

As someone else here said; none of us guys had our hands held to lead us into tech/programming. People (regardless of gender) who have the interest in something will pursue it.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Grishnakh]

I agree completely. Another useless bachelor's degree is Philosophy. It's a useless Master's degree too. I had a roommate in college who got a Master's in Philosophy. I'm not sure what he ended up doing, but I'm pretty sure it had to do with moving back home with his parents in their little town, and had nothing to do with philosophy.

As for a bit of socialization and practice and managing one's life, you can do all that at a local community for far less money than a 4-year university. The big thing you seem to get, socially, from a 4-year college is the whole dorm experience in your freshman and maybe sophomore years. I do think this is a good breaking-away-from-your-parents experience (it was for me), but does it need to cost that much money?

It does seem that our entire society needs a re-think on all this stuff.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[HornWumpus]

You are on crack. I guess that makes your parents unfit.

That's a silly definition, it just punts the problem downstream. By any reasoned process nobody without precong would be fit. 'Capable of maximizing the minimum?' Maximizing: really? Optimum or unfit?

More thought required!

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it valuable as a life-enriching experience? Sure. Is it worth $100k (or whatever) to do that? No, I don't really think so, especially when someone else is paying.

Reminds me of something I read many years back, wish I could remember the author...

"College is supposed to be a 4-year parent-sponsored binge of drinking and fornication."

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[Ororo]

Maximize the minimum happiness? Um, no. Parents have an obligation to raise kids to be functional members of society, ideally with values that include complying with applicable laws. Happiness is important, but I think it's more practical to teach a kid how to figure out what makes him or her happy.

Re:And I'm the feminist deity

[Anonymous Coward]

or programmers.

Re: And I'm the feminist deity

[darkarena9789]

I agree a lot with the comments, but I'm not willing to totally discount the study. It's true that make and female brains are different (there is physical proof), however that does not mean that there is also not a societal component to this. I encourage my daughter to learn to program, but I'm a programmer. There is a lot more pressure on me to also get my daughter to dress nice, take care of herself, and other things then I feel with my son. I don't feel that it's appropriate to say parents DISCOURAGE women from entering tech fields, they just don't ENCOURAGE them as much. That said, I think there are other reasons. Computer and robotic programs are generally also geared toward women. The programs are self contained and typically lack the complex social structure that most women like. I think the key is adding that component. Like the article mentioned above, girls need to see the social component of computer programming to see the benefit. I think many parents, including programmers like myself, tend to miss that aspect that would really speak to a girl. But then, so do many of the programs designed to get kids into programming as well.

Weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandparents introduced me and my brother+sister to computing in the 80's, several machines, lots of games and programs... Yet for some reason my sister was more interested in ponies and such (even if she did play plenty of games), later went for red cross related rescue stuff and biomedical studies...

All the options, no memory of any negative reinforcement, yet me and my brother turned out to be much more into computing.

Seems to me it was all about the interest each of us had.

Re:Weird...

[Anonymous Coward]

Society forced her to like ponies. And conversely, society rewarded you for spending hours with computers.

This is *so* obviously true: Don't you remember in high school, all the computer-club guys getting all the girls and being invited to all the cool parties?

Oh wait...

Re:Weird...

[twistedcubic]

So you and your brother were interested in computing, but your sister wasn't? Dude, you were literally brogrammers! It's your fault your sister wasn't interested!

Re:Weird...

[jmac0001]

I've attempted to teach my elementary school daughter about computers. I understand that she is still young, but I would like to think that there would be a chance that she might be interested in programming or something related to computers. I tried to start teaching he some things at a young age in order to see if there was any chance of her being interested in computers before being influenced by society. So far, she only wants to know enough about a computer to open Netflix to watch her cartoons (usually My Little Ponies). She has no interest in learning anything else about a computer. So far, I don't think that my daughter's lack of interest in computer is due to lack of encouragement, her parents, or society. I think there are real gender differences that a minority of people are trying to ignore and are causing a problem for the younger generation. There is nothing wrong with mutual respect between genders, but I think it's disrespectful to keep attempting to force certain gender roles upon the opposite gender. If a little girl wants to play with ponies and dolls, I think it's disrespectful to try to force her to do otherwise just to fulfill someone else's agenda of blurring the line between gender roles.

Re:Weird...

[ClayDowling]

Conversely, she met a horse. They're pretty cool animals. If I could make a decent living with a horse, I'd probably do that instead of programming.

what boys/girls want

[turkeydance]

heard this last millennium: little boys want a place to 'perform', while little girls want a place to 'relate'.

Re:what boys/girls want

[bangular]

Reality TV who's entire premise is traditional gender roles is extremely popular right now. Can't blame silicon valley when 19 kids and counting is on the home TV every night.

Re:what boys/girls want

[OzPeter]

Can't blame silicon valley when 19 kids and counting is on the home TV every night.

Don't know where you have been hiding the last week, but that show has been pulled due to various allegations.

Re:what boys/girls want

[PopeRatzo]

heard this last millennium: little boys want a place to 'perform', while little girls want a place to 'relate'.

Um, yeah. About that: http://boingboing.net/2015/05/...

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

And you have to wonder how a 'rank and yank' management culture is going to impact that, don't you? You can't build a team when everyone is forced to look out for themselves.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? You found one exception to the rule, so the rule is wrong? I can name several women programmers: Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Margaret Hamilton, and my step-mother. Yet in all my various jobs in the industry over the past decades, I have yet to meet a qualified woman programmer. Most women in CS ended up in management, documentation, and so on.

Of course there's nothing wrong with that! Why can't we let girls be what they want instead of trying to fit them into some mold based on what we think they should be?

BTW, the caption on the photo is wrong. There is no way she hand-wrote that much code -- and certainly not for the Apollo program where the CPUs had only several kB of program space! At best that's documentation for the code, although I suspect that it's output.

dom

Re:what boys/girls want

[Grishnakh]

little boys want a place to 'perform', while little girls want a place to 'relate'.

That's BS. The prevalence of girls/women in theater disproves it.

Also, coding on computers hardly counts as "performing". It's something that socially awkward boys like to do because computers are highly predictable and won't make fun of you. Boys who like to perform go into sports and theater, not computers. Girls go into cheerleading, sports, and theater; they too like to perform.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't blame silicon valley when 19 kids and counting is on the home TV every night.

Don't know where you have been hiding the last week, but that show has been pulled due to various allegations.

TLC like OLN just another knee-jerk reaction. I miss Duck Dynasty.

Re:what boys/girls want

[PopeRatzo]

I can name several women programmers: Ada Lovelace

You mean the first programmer?

It's such a masculine profession that it was started by a woman.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW, the caption on the photo is wrong. There is no way she hand-wrote that much code -- and certainly not for the Apollo program where the CPUs had only several kB of program space! At best that's documentation for the code, although I suspect that it's output.

Well, it doesn't necessarily say that's all code that they used, and all the same version. It could include a lot of stuff that got revised, replaced, or thrown out over the years. I don't think it stretches plausibility at all.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotted on Reddit :

"In the (excellent) book 'Apollo 11 Owners' Workshop Manual' (Haynes), the caption for this photo is 'Software Engineer Margaret Hamilton with a pile of print-out results from simulations, circa 1969 (MIT Library)'"
"So..probably not code. The book actually details the simulation process (and associated printouts) with some good detail."

Re:what boys/girls want

[sound vision]

What a girl wants, what a girl needs~
Whatever makes me happy

Re:what boys/girls want

[Areyoukiddingme]

The prevalence of girls/women in theater disproves it.

So that's what they're calling it these days...

Re:what boys/girls want

[Pentium100]

Yea, there are exceptions, but the "norm" is that girls are not into technology. I am not saying the "norm" is good, but it is what it is.

Also, women are diffrent from men in physical strength. Sure, there are a lot of women who could beat me up or lift more weight than I can, but if you chose a man and a woman at random there is over 50% chance that the man would be stronger than the woman. I do not know if this also applies to the ability to program.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

heard this last millennium: little boys want a place to 'perform', while little girls want a place to 'relate'.

But, but, that would not make the Google Director of Diversity and Inclusion very pleased with that type of attitude (rolls eyes).

Re:what boys/girls want

[davester666]

and the parenting problem with boys....they were trained to expect too much money. Hence, the desperate need for H1B's.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's how rules work. One exception blows the whole thing. Welcome to logic. You must not be a programmer. BTW, since you're interested in logic, you should note that "I have yet to meet ..." cannot logically be succeeded by "Most women ...". Your anecdotal evidence doesn't allow you to generalize to half the species.

Why can't we let girls be what they want instead of trying to fit them into some mold based on what we think they should be?

Good idea. You can start by not writing sentences that begin "Most women".

Re:what boys/girls want

[gbjbaanb]

That'll have been Babbage. Turns out Ada wasn't the first programmer, but the first computer operator, feeding in programs Babbage wrote.

Still, so what - Babbage was a truly great man, we shouldn't denigrate his position in history just because he didn't have boobies and some people today want to rewrite history to suit their own newthink.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Think you latched on to the wrong definition of perform there...
#1, not #2

        1.
        carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function).
        "I have my duties to perform"
        synonyms: carry out, do, execute, discharge, bring about, bring off, accomplish, achieve, fulfill, complete, conduct, effect, dispatch, work, implement; More

        2.
        present (a form of entertainment) to an audience.
        "the cast of 14 perform the play superbly"
        synonyms: stage, put on, present, mount, enact, act, produce

Re:what boys/girls want

[LWATCDR]

"That's BS. The prevalence of girls/women in theater disproves it."
Umm you do know that acting is all about relating right?

As a software engineer that also took drama I have to say that is one of the oddest things I have seen on Slashdot in a while.
Aka perform has more than one meaning.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not using the word "perform" in the same way as the original poster. English is a fuzzy language.

girls want to relate - i.e. communicate feelings - thus your example of theatre perfectly fits the intent of the OP.

boys want to perform - i.e. to flex their muscles, to solve problems, to build mighty walls... they don't want to put on a show (theatre) they don't care if anyone is watching.

Cyril Northcote Parkinson wrote a book at about this - he claimed that men see everything as a problem to solve and then move on to the next one, while women want to use discussion of events (including problems) as a means of forming or strengthening socially important interpersonal bonds. So it pisses women off when men say "right, hold the tool in your left hand next time, what's for supper anyway?". (The book is just as stuck in antique gender roles as the prior sentence implies, so it's rarely read these days.)

Re:what boys/girls want

[briancox2]

I don't think theater does disprove that. A general rule can be a general rule even if you do find what appears to be an exception.

Besides, of all different ways to perform, theater has one of the highest degrees of "relate" in it.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

because computers ... won't make fun of you.

Core Dump: HA HA HA HA HA!

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

This a thousand times. Boys/Girls. Men/Women want different things and are actualized by different things They are NOT tabula raza to be written arbitrarily.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it. Yes both can do both but they do the same things for different reasons, goals and needs!

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out Ada wasn't the first programmer, but the first computer operator, feeding in programs Babbage wrote.

That would be difficult, seeing as the damn thing was never completed in her lifetime!

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad phrasing. Think 'Perform Competitively' or just simply 'Compete'.

The primitive parts (the lizard brain) of the human brain is wired to some extent to reward males who display their superiority to potential mates.

Re:what boys/girls want

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that an entire generation has been sold the BS that roles and abilities and IQ and all the other quirks are human endeavor are infinitely malleable. So the only reason that women are not as prevalent in IT is - well it must be - discrimination.

But that is not so: in just the same way as taking a drug dealer from the ghetto and giving him an IT course does not turn him into a developer so to pushing women into IT to, gasp, reverse discrimination does not make her a great programmer or for that matter even interested in the field. (The women in my life look on my software interest with smiling disdain though I have tried to get them interested.)

Truth is at the upper levels - software architects, designers or innovators - men, particularly white men seem to be more creative and original than anyone else. Yeh, yeh, I know it is racist and sexist and whatever ist you can think of, but it is true. In the main the statement is true. Look around you will see it is true. (And those who cite the few counter examples simply prove they don't understand the normal distribution.)

Re:what boys/girls want

[cwsumner]

That'll have been Babbage. Turns out Ada wasn't the first programmer, but the first computer operator, feeding in programs Babbage wrote. ...

Babbage didn't have the time to design programs. Ada did not only the coding, but also the program design and data structures. And yes, she invented a lot of that. Before her. it was only "tinkering".

Look it up for yourself... 8-)

Guys aren't interested in social change?

[Anonymous Coward]

Responding to sexism with sexism. Sweet.

Re: Guys aren't interested in social change?

[im_thatoneguy]

I know a lot of women in non profits. Generally "being interested in social change" is code for "shit pay".

Re: Guys aren't interested in social change?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of women in non profits. Generally "being interested in social change" is code for "shit pay".

I know a lot of men in non-profits too. What does one thing have to do with the other?

Re:Oh look!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but talking like that is a form of assault. Please identify yourself so I can know who comment-raped me.

no power

[rubycodez]

there is no power in being a corporate droid programmer, what a load of bullshit. So corporate america wants to increase the number of coders and we should change our child rearing accordingly? And this STEM push is bullshit also, why are they not also having advanced classes in the fine arts and humanities? neither my son nor daughter are being encouraged to be coders, if they desire that on their own that's fine

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

With the quickly deteriorating working conditions (increasing ageism, 24-hour availability, poorer long-term pay prospects, offshoring, etc) maybe mothers are just being smarter in not pushing the next generation into "careers" in computing that will have a shelf life of a decade before they have to find something else to do?

If you think it's bad that 40 is the new 60 in IT, just wait ...

Re:no power

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah yeah yeah. It's so tough being a programmer.

Reality check: many, many other jobs are doing worse. You may think that programming is going down hill as a career* but would mothers rather that their daughters study Eng Lit and then become a Starbucks barista when making it as a journalist doesn't quite work out for them?

*though I don't see that, heck on the front page is a story about how much money is flooding into the industry from VC's right now

Re:no power

[drinkypoo]

If you swing for IT and miss, what are you going to do for a living? Phone support? Telemarketing?

If you swing for some real vocation and miss, like say smog tech or doctor, you can still fall back as something else, like a normal bolt-breaking mechanic, or a weed doc.

I don't know what the female equivalents are, it's probably sexist even to just suggest such a thing. Not a lot of women going into smog though

Re:no power

[jopsen]

If you swing for IT and miss, what are you going to do for a living? Phone support? Telemarketing?

If you don't make it as a software engineer developing big complicated systems.. .You can go work on web designs. maintaining old school php deployments, do QA, or work as a software engineer in a place with lower standards. It's true that some shops have high expectations, especially in the valley, but around the world there is also lots of places where you don't make 150k and don't have to work 40 hour weeks.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

right. why does google seem to care so much about getting girls to code. not just a little, but as part
of their core corporate mission.

because google is built on grunts. and if they are going to continue to grow they need to hire a lot
more of them. they already lowered their standards. and are actively recruiting in every last
corner of the earth. still - not enough grunts.

if we can just get girls to think that working with computers is fun, maybe that will be enough bodies
to keep them satiated

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

"Go work on web designs"? This isn't 1997. The market is saturated and then some, and that's not going to change. Today's equivalent is "you can always build apps."

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

Cyclical boom-bust with the VCs. How many companies died in the last tech bubble? A career isn't just "work during the bubble, then get laid off and scrape by until the next bubble." That's for realtors.

Re:no power

[i.r.id10t]

Of course, the basics that help make good STEM students - teaching kids how to learn instead of just rote memorization and regurgitation of facts, how to solve problems using the tools at hand, how to think critically - are very useful no matter what field someone ends up in, be it programming or performance art.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to put my finger on what the approximate calender date it was when whiny losers took over the ranks of Slashdot mods (not so much individual posters like BH, the likes of which were probably always around, but those who consistently mod up her POV).

NOBODY owes you a living. This is the EXACT SAME MESSAGE people on this very site have gleefully been delivering to musicians and journalists. There are many employers out there and many open jobs, and not just in India and 22-yr old Americans, but you need to figure out how you can add value.

Re:no power

[goose-incarnated]

Of course, the basics that help make good STEM students - teaching kids how to learn instead of just rote memorization and regurgitation of facts, how to solve problems using the tools at hand, how to think critically - are very useful no matter what field someone ends up in, be it programming or performance art.

When I was in school, just after the last ice-age the teaching methods of the time relied heavily on rote memorization (times tables, for example). Thanks to that I can do extremely quick calculations in my head and get approximate answers (good enough, anyway). Hand me a slide rule and I'll do even more complex calculations.

There is nothing wrong with rote memorization as long as you understand it's just a tool to avoid time-wasting look-ups.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the app market is way more saturated than the web design market. Web wins by being a bigger market in the first place. For every app there's 100 websites that still need mobile "tweaks", and for every large company ready to pay for a bespoke app there are 100 small businesses that still don't have a meaningful web presence at all. Web design shops continue to thrive, and app developers continue to struggle, and that's not going to change. It isn't 2009 any more either.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

True, nobody "owes" anyone a living. However, as a society, we have decided that we are affluent enough to be able to help the less fortunate, and that everyone who can should contribute because in the end it benefits everyone, same as libraries, public education, police and fire services, the courts, a standing military, roads and highways, bus and subway services, shelters for the homeless and battered spouses, foster homes for children in need, pharmaceutical regulations, food inspections, etc.

Sure, there are many employers out there and many job openings, but sexism, ageism, racism, and even just "going to the wrong school" all mitigate against people who can no longer find jobs at the drop of a hat. And then there are employers who will find a way not to hire someone based purely on their appearance or the presence of a handicap.

Re:no power

[russotto]

However, as a society, we have decided that we are affluent enough to be able to help the less fortunate

Naa, you've decided that I'm affluent enough to be able to help the less fortunate. Of course, the "helping" never ends. If the people involved consisted of just me and an unemployed Robert Downey Jr, you'd note that Bob was homeless and hungry on the street. So you'd take some money from me and give it to Bob, and he'd put it up his nose. Then you'd look and you'd see that I still had a good deal of money and Bob was still homeless and hungry, and you'd take more money from me and give it to Bob, who would put it up his nose. Repeat until I'm homeless too.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

Mobile tweaks are becoming less necessary as display sizes get larger. Also, more CMS packages handle that "out of the box."

Also, most small businesses don't need a web presence. Not the local daycare, not the local gas station, not the local convenience store, not the local restaurant, not the local veterinarian.

For them, word of mouth is the best, most cost-effective advertising they can ever get - same as any other business.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

No, I'd invest the money into getting Bob off the streets and turning him back into a productive member of society. Considering that his future earnings would more than pay back the cost, it's a win-win for everyone, including you, since that money would go into providing those other public services I mentioned, the ones that you benefit from.

Re:no power

[russotto]

No, I'd invest the money into getting Bob off the streets and turning him back into a productive member of society.

Bob would rather do coke. And it would be an affront to his dignity or whatever to condition "helping" him on any change on his part.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

No, I'd invest the money into getting Bob off the streets and turning him back into a productive member of society.

Bob would rather do coke. And it would be an affront to his dignity or whatever to condition "helping" him on any change on his part.

There are plenty of addicts who want to get clean, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of alcoholics who want to get sober, but they too can't do it on their own. There are plenty of ex-cons who want to go straight, but they can't do it on their own when they're back in the 'hood and can't get a job because of their past (we just covered this a few days ago here).

There are plenty of families that don't want to fall apart, but nowadays they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of people who would like to continue their education or learn a trade, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of spouses who don't want to continue the cycle of abuse, but they can't do it on their own.

There are plenty of mentally ill people who would love to end their suffering in ways other than suicide, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of physically handicapped people who would love to participate in and contribute to society, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of war veterans who want to get their lives together and get help with PTSD, but they can't do it on their own.

There are plenty of people who want to see crime lowered in their neighborhood, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of people who want available funds to go to schools instead of computer in education scams by Pierson and Co, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of people who want to work, but without flex time to take care of aging parents, or affordable daycare for their children, they can't do it on their own.

You of course think that because they can't do it on their own, they're "not trying hard enough." The 1,127 garment workers who died in Rana Plaza "weren't working hard enough." The people who need to hold down 2 or 3 jobs and leave their kids cared for by others because wages have been stagnant for 40 years while all the gains of productivity have gone solely to the bosses "aren't working hard enough."

So here we have an economy where people have to slit each others throats in a race to the bottom for jobs. I've got news for you. You're not a special snowflake either. You're one catastrophic life event (illness, etc) from joining Bob.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

like say smog tech

... I know it's tangential to you real point, but I can't resist. Given the likelihood of electric cars coming to dominate (whether it's in 10, 20, or even 30 years), smog tech would appear to be a poor choice for a long term career.

Re:no power

[OutOnARock]

Not the local daycare, not the local gas station, not the local convenience store, not the local restaurant, not the local veterinarian.

I would argue that in tourist towns, a web presence is a very important asset for all those you mention, with the possible exception of a local vet, until your on vacation with your dog and you need a 24hr vet.

I live in Honolulu so yes its a tourist town

Re:no power

[russotto]

There are plenty of addicts who want to get clean, but they can't do it on their own. There are plenty of alcoholics who want to get sober, but they too can't do it on their own. There are plenty of ex-cons who want to go straight, but they can't do it on their own when they're back in the 'hood and can't get a job because of their past (we just covered this a few days ago here).

There are plenty of addicts who just want to get their next fix. There are plenty of alcoholics who just want their next drink. There are plenty of ex-cons who would just as soon commit crimes rather than go straight. These people -- regardless of the existence of the people you mention -- constitute a bottomless pit of "need", and thus a limitless call on the resources of the more able.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk as if most of your tax money was going to addicts and welfare queens. It isn't.

Most of it is going to retirees.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

You can argue that all you want, but that's not how real life is. People visiting either go on business, as tourists to see sights (not restaurants, etc) or friends and family.

As far as where to eat, they'll go with what's nearby or what others recommend.

Just look at how many restaurant web sites never get updated because even the restauranteur has forgotten about them, and customers never mention them.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

The ones who don't want help are a self-regulating problem - they'll die.

And that has NOTHING to do with the fact that there are those who want, but can't get, help.

Re:no power

[russotto]

No, addicts can survive for many years. Until you figure out some way of separating those who want lasting help and can be helped from those who just want their next fix, you'll never do much about the former problem; the latter will end up eating all your resources.

Re:no power

[BarbaraHudson]

And yet we have successes every day, so they're not eating all our resources. Maybe a disproportionate amount, but the same can be said for any other group. The aged, the infirm, the red states.

Re:no power

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Prospects seem dreary for any American, regardless of gender, who wants to go into CS. Jobs are getting outsourced, off-shored etc. Who wants that? Girls go into the life sciences anyway and have been doing so for years.

Yawn, click bate

[Anonymous Coward]

Boring, repetitive, unimportant, not news.

Thanks, again.

It yould be either that,

[Anonymous Coward]

or it could be the influnce of testosterone during early development of the child. Harald Eia made an excellent documentary on that topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

That's it.

[bigfinger76]

From now on, I'm modding up any troll posts in these bs threads. This is beyond ridiculous.

Re:That's it.

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on, I'm modding up any troll posts in these bs threads.

"From now on"? How is that any different from what you've been doing since you started here?

Re:That's it.

[bigfinger76]

Expand on that.

Re:That's it.

[sound vision]

Straight up... I haven't seen mod points in like 8 years (maybe I'm blacklisted? Karma has been "excellent" for most of that period...) but I'd be doing this too.

Re:That's it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a lower slashdot ID than yours, excellent karma and have also not seen a mod point in years. I have no idea what their criteria is, but whether I was active here, semi-active or just away for extended periods of time, it did not matter. Interestingly, it was after I was "foe'd" by a Slashdot employee that I stopped getting points. Coincidence or causal I don't know... but interesting nonetheless.

Rant from a would-be oil field roughneck

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing my dad encouraged me to do was learn to operate heavy machinery, which to an 8 year old, was pretty cool. Other than that, I got no such encouragement to go into any other field. It was assumed I'd either work in an oil field, drive trucks or dig ditches for a living. Now of course this probably has more to do with where I live and my family history, but I still found programming (can't stand the word 'coder') at the age of 18 and a few years later I have my very first job doing it. No one pushed me, no one taught me anything. I have no degree and no real world experience. But I still did it, I signed that contract and now for the first time in my life I am an employed programmer. (code monkey more like it, but whatever)

What I do have is a deep seated love for computers and engineering. It just makes sense to me and I love doing it. Sometimes I feel like I want to climb up to my roof and rabble on about how great hash maps are or explain a complex problem that I overcame to someone who just gives me a blank stare.

You don't just 'encourage' a deep passion like that. It doesn't just come from nowhere, it has to be there to begin with. I'm not saying women aren't capable of this passion, but I am saying we shouldn't just assume that programming is something you can just pick up and do, and do it well. One thing I have seen in my few years is that there's so many people in these communities who just straight-up love what they do, and that's one of the main reasons they're so damn good at it. No matter how much encouragement these little girls get it won't matter if their heart isn't in it. That, or they'll be half in it and be terrible.It won't be their fault, but they'll just go along with it, and in the end when every other line is a bug the rest of the world will suffer.

I understand the feeling of wanting everyone else to get into what your doing, since you love doing it and it makes you happy, you want to share it. But god damn, it just doesn't matter to some people. Don't force it.

I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would *anyone* encourage their child, regardless of gender, to spend a decade or more training for what is quickly becoming a minimum-wage job at best.

We should instead be encouraging kids to become investment bankers, hedge fund managers or politicians.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Powercntrl]

Why would *anyone* encourage their child, regardless of gender, to spend a decade or more training for what is quickly becoming a minimum-wage job at best.

This.

Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest. Google's "coder shortage" seems completely imaginary. They're an advertising company whose greatest trick was convincing the world they are a software company.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[cowdung]

"Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest. Google's "coder shortage" seems completely imaginary. They're an advertising company whose greatest trick was convincing the world they are a software company."

Wouldn't it be interesting if Google was really just a front for the NSA?

They did it in Argo.. why not make a company with irresistible tech that makes everyone give the company their secrets. Sounds easier to do then breaking cryptographic codes all day.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[PopeRatzo]

Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest. Google's "coder shortage" seems completely imaginary.

Not imaginary - a concerted effort to drive down labor costs.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Grishnakh]

If it was easy for the government to, on a whim, make highly popular companies with "irresistable tech", then the Soviets would have succeeded economically in a big way.

You can't create or plan for success like Google; it just happens. It is possible the NSA infiltrated them after-the-fact, but the idea that the NSA created Google is just ridiculous.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[gbjbaanb]

or Directors of Diversity and Inclusivity.

Which is maybe why girls are studying English Lit instead of STEM courses - why work hard when you can spout a load of bull from a cosy office and get paid far more?!

They always said girls were more intelligent than boys, if they've seen the way the world works and are exploiting it while the boys are shouting "your code is teh sux0r, n00b" at each other, its probably true

Re:I call shenanigans...

[gbjbaanb]

They did it in Argo.. why not make a company with irresistible tech that makes everyone give the company their secrets

well, I guess that's one reason why Facebook exists at all.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[swillden]

Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest. Google's "coder shortage" seems completely imaginary. They're an advertising company whose greatest trick was convincing the world they are a software company.

I'm a Google engineer, and both of these statements are incorrect.

Taking the second one first, Google is not an advertising company. It's a software engineering company whose primary products are most effectively monetized via advertising. Or, sometimes I think it might be more accurate to say that Google is a data center company, since building, operating and utilizing enormous data centers at extreme efficiency is Google's true core competency. If and when Google gets serious about competing with Amazon in that space Amazon will have a tough time keeping up.

Google is moving fairly quickly away from advertising, diversifying into products which are sold directly. Note that nearly all of the speculative new projects that have come out of "Google X" are built around goods and services, more than the sort of low-value (on a per transaction basis) information services that are Google's current big products. No big winners have emerged from that effort, yet, but if one or more of them do "hit", you can expect to see it quickly replace advertising as the primary revenue driver. About 10% of Google's revenues these days come from non-advertising products. 10% seems small, but keep in mind that represents $5B annually, and is up from basically 0% just a few years ago. Non-ad revenues are growing faster than the ad revenues, so the percentage of Google revenue derived from advertising will continue falling even without a massive new business.

Further, culturally, Google never has been an advertising company. It's a thoroughly engineering-focused company, top to bottom.

The shortage of engineers is not imaginary. Google legitimately has a hard time finding enough software engineers of the caliber it seeks. Money isn't the issue; few people who receive an offer from Google reject it. In the context of this article, though, the big problem is that the engineers Google can find are overwhelmingly male, and either white or Asian. Mostly white. Studies done by many organizations, including studies done internally by Google, show that diverse teams are more creative and more productive. In addition, Google's culture is surprisingly idealistic, and people in the company consider it a legitimate problem that the company -- especially eng -- is not representative of the population as a whole.

I think part of that latter point derives from the fact that Google engineers are, if anything, too well-paid. Estimates I've seen put the "1%" line at about $400K annual income, and most senior Googlers -- including engineers, not just execs and managers -- are above that line. Getting paid that much tends to make decent people wonder if they should feel guilty at their luck and their privilege. At the same time, it's not like anyone is going to agitate to get paid less. So a better option is to say "Well, the real problem here isn't that I make too much, it's that not enough people have the opportunity to do the same". In particular, women and minorities.

That last paragraph is purely personal speculation, mind you. Laszlo Bock may not agree at all.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't it be interesting if Google was really just a front for the NSA?

Google is basically a front for the CIA. I thought this was common knowledge.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[LWATCDR]

My opinion is that Google needs to move out of the SF area if you want more diversity. One of the reasons that you get mostly males that are mostly white and asian is that SF is not all that diverse when it comes to race.
If you want more African American people to apply then I suggest Atlanta and the Washington DC area.
If you want more Hispanic people to apply Texas"Dallas and Houston", Southern California, and South Florida are prime areas.
I work in South Florida and we have a very diverse work force. You will not find a lot of people of color in the SF area since it has very little in the way African American or Hispanic history and culture. The Spanish influence has long ago been pushed back.
BTW it will take time no matter what. Trying to fix the issue of women not going into the STEM fields will take a long time and if Google really wants this to happen they have got to work harder on quality of life for people with kids. Places to work with good schools, short commutes, and reasonable home prices will also help a lot with diversity and quality of life.
Trying to get everyone to love SF is not going to work. While it is a nice place to visit I see it as a hellish place to live and I bet a lot of other people feel the same.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[geekmux]

Why would *anyone* encourage their child, regardless of gender, to spend a decade or more training for what is quickly becoming a minimum-wage job at best.

We should instead be encouraging kids to become investment bankers, hedge fund managers or politicians.

Well it sure is a damn good thing we only give a shit about making money these days now that job satisfaction and career happiness has been outsourced to another planet.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would *anyone* encourage their child, regardless of gender, to spend a decade or more training for what is quickly becoming a minimum-wage job at best.

We should instead be encouraging kids to become investment bankers, hedge fund managers or politicians.

Real great idea. As a reward, you should be locked for 90 days in a cell with $20000 and nothing else. Maybe that will make you figure out what you overlooked.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a joke? Have you seen the salaries that Google/Facebook/LinkedIn are throwing a programmers these days? Minimum wage? Laughable.

If you're not making money in programming the reality is that you're a shitty programmer. In which case, why would you be any better at being an investment banker? The grass is always greener, I guess.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha, you really think Google is going to "get serious" and kick Amazon's ass at cloud? Is that just like how they "got serious" and kicked Facebook's ass with Google+?

Look man, as a software developer here's my perception of Google: you're a big company that I cannot trust to keep anything running for long. Even Oracle has managed to not screw up Java, at least badly enough to make people flee. Whereas any Google projects, we could name names but it's a long list and you know them as well as anyone, get shut down a lot. So as a developer, nope, I don't touch your stuff if I can possibly help it (as it so happens, I can always possibly help it).

As for end users/regular consumers: Google has made it loud and clear with Android who it thinks its real customers are and it's not me as an end user.

I know you personally probably haven't made any of these decisions. And hey, I'm glad you like your job, for what it's worth it's probably better than mine on a daily basis (though my 6 minute commute walking along the river up here in Portland probably kicks your commute's ass). But from the outside looking in, you appear pretty myopic to me (or rather my reading of your comments make me believe this). While many will not agree, I know for a fact my view of Google is not rare.

As for diversity or whatever, sure, get diversity if you want, but realize that the engineers you're looking for are going to be rare no matter what, strictly speaking everyone else is absolutely correct that Google is wrong when they claim there's a shortage. There's no shortage of engineers, just engineers you're willing to hire (based on location and skill level, if I had to guess).

Re:I call shenanigans...

[lexman098]

I work for a tech company in engineering as well (electrical). My company prides itself on being "picky" in terms of who it hires, but honestly they reject a lot of people who I think would work out just fine. We get hundreds of resumes at career fairs, and pick about 10 to even contact at all. Then, if we're lucky, just one will accept our offer. It's ridiculous. Maybe what Google needs is similar to what my company needs: to not be so pretentious about their requirements.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[cowdung]

Do you think investment bankers, hedge fund managers, and especially politicians are "happy"?

Happiness is not a function of money.. those that spend their lives chasing money are rarely happy.

Re:I call shenanigans...

[Anonymous Coward]

...puhleeze - I received a call from a Google HR person a couple of years ago, and when they described the hiring process I effectively told them to call me back when they grow up and learn to treat professionals with respect.

The hiring process is demeaning, insulting, and stupid - it filters for nerds, nerds, nerds. True, I am a female nerd - creative and collaborative and well-respected by my peers. I am exactly what Google needs but no effing way would I want to work there. Money be damned. So Google MAKE it hard to find good lady-people and then whine whine whine that there aren't enough women. And their products reflect this - look at the sucky calendar app that doesn't even scroll by week - yikes! No woman would have designed that - our lives are too complicated and don't fit neatly into 4-week blocks.

Maybe they could try revererse psycholgy

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents did not only not encourage me to study computers, they actively encouraged me not to and would not allow me to buy one even with my own money, they certainly weren't going to do it with theirs (this was back in the 70's). I did anyway an grew up to design them IRL.

I eventually bought one, but wasn't allowed to use it except for certain time periods and vividly recall waiting for them to leave and locking myself in the bathroom (most secure room in the house) to use it when I wasn't allowed to.

Re:UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[twistedcubic]

You complain, but these articles get 1000 posts. Your corporate overlord is doing exactly as expected.

Not bad parenting

[mysidia]

Google fingered bad parenting for its lack of women techies.

More like: Google disagrees with their parenting.

Just because their values as parents didn't agree with your values today, Or your general desire to have more people in computer science, in order to reduce wages, Or your desire to have more diversity among computer scientists to help you comply with arbitrary government-imposed regulations on your employee population : does not make them bad parents.

Re:Not bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

Or your general desire to have more people in computer science, in order to reduce wages, Or your desire to have more diversity among computer scientists to help you comply with arbitrary government-imposed regulations on your employee population

It's a huge conspiracy I tell you!

Re:Not bad parenting

[non0score]

Nowhere did Google or its representative say it's "bad parenting". Google is being asked one question "why are there much less females in tech?", and they're trying to answer that very question. Agreeing values or not has nothing to do with it.

Re:Not bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

But a lo of those same people then complain abut the lack of diversity. in tech companies and are jealous because of the high salaries tech workers make.

Re:Not bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google wants to think more about CS, why do they (and many other software giants) dumb-down their user interfaces so much?
It boggles my mind how unconfigurable and underpowered today's interfaces have become, to the point of stupidity.

Re:Not bad parenting

[Anonymous Coward]

I should think it's good parenting to steer kids away from IT.
I've been a programmer all my life and it's a shitty job with mediocre pay and poor working conditions.
If you want your kids to be happy, get them interested in law or finance.

NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[antiperimetaparalogo]

A great documentary about how biology (not culture) effects genders and differentiates males/boy from females/girls, so that males/boy choose masculine jobs/toys (e.g., coding... yes, its "masculine"!) while females/girls choose feminine jobs/toys (e.g., nurses... good for them!) - a great point was that the most "free" a society is, the more those gender differences will be observed: Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox (note: i watched it just yesterday, thanks to user "popo" posting it in the "Science Still Seen As a Male Profession" story - by the way: ENOUGH WITH ALL THE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES)

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[PopeRatzo]

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Nobody told this silly female: http://boingboing.net/2015/05/...

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Oligonicella]

There are female construction workers as well. Also male nurses. You're pedantically promoting the false assumption that it must be one hundred percent to be a masculine or feminine career which makes your discourse suspect.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn she's hot!

And look at that grin!! Of course she's smiling, she's been banging astronauts for months while writing *moon landing code*...man what a fucking life! Good for her!

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Nobody told this silly female: http://boingboing.net/2015/05/...

I don't get it. How does that disprove the notion that programming is "masculine" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean). Something being "masculine/feminine" and something being "male/female" are two different things. Again, I am not trying to argue that programming is "masculine", nor do I even know what it is about programming that OP thinks makes it count as "masculine". The only thing I am arguing is that you haven't disproved the notion.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are female construction workers as well. Also male nurses. You're pedantically promoting the false assumption that it must be one hundred percent to be a masculine or feminine career which makes your discourse suspect.

This is true, in fact being in my 50s now I remember back in the mid-late 70s (and early 80s) a lot of flack from women about not being allowed into construction jobs, etc... and it changed and as long as they could do the job (certified welder, riveting, bricklaying, or whatever, trained - apprenticeship, etc) they had to be hired. That was 30+yrs ago, why aren't there 50% (or at least close) women in construction now? Maybe because most of them just aren't really interested in it?

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[PopeRatzo]

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Funny, nobody told the woman who invented coding.

https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWo...

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[antiperimetaparalogo]

coding... yes, its "masculine"!

Funny, nobody told the woman who invented coding.

https://www.sdsc.edu/ScienceWo...

So... that English woman who was Born in 1815 "invented coding"... hmmm...

I posted that documentary link because i am a "sexist" (i believe that boys and girls have biological differences that effect their brains, so become different both intelectually and behaviourally) - and you went back to 1815 to prove me wrong! But i am also a fucking racist Greek so: Here is a couple of milleniums older stuff - i the Greek win, you barbarian lose!

In a more serious tone: some overlap exist - but still, the boys will choose the pistol and the girls the doll. Watch the documentary (all of it), and you may understand why it is ridiculous to deny nature.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[PopeRatzo]

So... that English woman who was Born in 1815 "invented coding"... hmmm.

You really don't know who Ada Lovelace is, do you?

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[antiperimetaparalogo]

So... that English woman who was Born in 1815 "invented coding"... hmmm.

You really don't know who Ada Lovelace is, do you?

She is the daughter of a great MAN: Lord Byron, who we honor in Greece because he died like a great MAN... fighting Muslims!

I personaly honored him many times when i was serving as a conscript in the Greek S.F. (we don't forget our friend!) in a way i know he would liked, and all Greeks do the same, in school, the military, or as civilians.

GREEKS REMEMBER YOU - HONOR AND GLORY TO LORD BYRON

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

who we honor in Greece

If you spent less time honoring Lord Byron and more time working and paying taxes, the rest of the world wouldn't have to always bail out your economy.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Whiteox]

That's an analog computer.
The first coding was done by Jacquard (1805) based on the work of another Frenchman Basile Bouchon (1725).
Babbage was a fan of Jacquard btw.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[AmiMoJo]

If you don't like these stores then don't comment, simple as that. Some of us like to discuss these issues. Actually a lot of us do, judging by the fact that they often have the most comments on a given day.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[serviscope_minor]

She is the daughter of a great MAN: Lord Byron, who we honor in Greece because

I honour him because he kept a bear in his room at university and ate a whole bunch of drugs (opium).

But, no matter how cool Byron was, his daughter still invented coding.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

e.g., coding... yes, its "masculine

It doesn't go VROOOOM, it doesn't blow smoke, but it does make sure the only muscles you can show off are the ones used for sitting.

Plus, most of you colleagues will be the guys who got bullied for not being masculine.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a deep fear in the eyes of the social scientists, particularly in that video, and it seems pretty obvious what it is. They fear that if they are forced to accept the reality that there are inherent biological differences that affect interests, that they may also be forced to consider that those same biological differences affect ability and capacity. It was touched on in the video - ever so briefly, but the fear is so stark that it can only be hinted at, even by those dedicated biological scientists and the narrator who seek nothing but objective truth. Fortunately for anyone reading this, I'm immune to such fear.

While there are exceptions to every rule - brilliant female computer scientists and creators of technology in all forms exist, and some of history's most empathetic, social individuals (consider Ghandi) were male. Exceptions do not invalidate a rule, at most they convert the rule into a generalization of varying power depending upon how many such exceptions exist relative to the whole. Fortunately we have a lot of people who like collating data (probably men lolol) in such a way as to reveal the exact power of these generalizations. So, moving on...

We are years, possibly decades away from everyone accepting the reality that men and women, at a biological level, have innate differences in interests. But the scariest thing in the world, especially for women and gender researchers, is the terrifying notion that our evolution has created a difference in the capacity of what a male brain can achieve versus what a female version can achieve. That, we are generations away from understanding. Fortunately I'm from the future and I'm here to explain it to you all. :P

They should not be so afraid of discovering this, for several reasons: For one, technical ability is more easily measured and quantified than empathetic or social ability - that doesn't change the reality, it just makes it easier to notice. Which is more important, the technical or the social? Personally I believe that technical and mechanical ability is a type of creative thought - not creative in the artistic sense, but as in to create, to build, which is the core of what makes us human. I feel that social skill, empathy, and nurturing are a type of support. This is also at the core of what make us human. So, one gender is not only more interested in one, but they are better, precisely because they have always been interested in it, and vice versa. And they're afraid of this? So afraid they'll spend a lifetime conducting "research" that is, albeit somewhat worthwhile to be doing, extremely limited due to the blinders they wear from viciously denying anything biological as a source?

They should not be afraid. They say behind every good man is a woman. There's more truth here than anyone realizes, and there's a reason it's not written the other way around. Men blaze trails, and women do not merely follow, they are the breeze at the backs of men who built the world. Each has value, and they feed upon one another as men and women have done since time immemorial. Men are also different from one another in intellectual capacity. We all are, everyone. Nobody scores the same on every test or achieves the same level of achievement in the course of their lives. We accept this as obvious but then cling to the delusion that men and women have identical capacity for thought, ability to create, and capacity to reason and to channel their minds toward those particular activities associated with creation and building, while simultaneously ridiculing men as being unable to feel as women do, unable to have the same capacity of women to empathize, to support, to nurture, to socialize, and laugh about it all the while. In reality, the laughter is merely fear of admitting that men exceed women's capacity for thought and ability in other areas, fear that these areas are somehow more important, simply because they cannot see that they are not. Why can't women see this? Because to understand anything

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's rejecting the false assumption that careers are masculine or feminine at all. His "discourse" is suspect? Nice veneer of intellect you've got there, but talking like an 19th-century intellectual doesn't make your 19th-century views any more relevant.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

You did the Greek lose. No one knows what the sex of the maker or the sex of the inventor of the Antikythera mechanism was, female or male makes no difference when you have no evidence.

We do have evidence for Ada Lovelace writing code in the 1800's for a general purpose machine.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Analytical Engine was mechanical, but it was indeed digital, not analog.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[antiperimetaparalogo]

If you don't like these stores then don't comment, simple as that. Some of us like to discuss these issues. Actually a lot of us do, judging by the fact that they often have the most comments on a given day.

You have a point there, but you have to accept that much of this "discussion" is... "no more girl-coders fucking stories"!

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

The average woman is the same height as the average man. The average woman has the same strength as the average man. The average woman has the same vision as the average man. Oh wait, none of that is true. I guess we are raising women culturally to be shorter, weaker, slower, etc. Or, you know, there could actually be some differences in living things that are genetic. Fucking idiot.

Re:NO MORE GIRL-CODERS FUCKING STORIES...

[Anonymous Coward]

You may like 'The Factual Feminist' on YouTube also.

The real reason there aren't more female scientists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-6usiN4uoA

Re:UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[Anonymous Coward]

These are shitposts, that draw shitposters. Everything about these stories is shit.

"News for genderwarriors. Stuff that isn't relevant."

Remarkably perceptive.

Re:UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[konohitowa]

Seems like the days of 1000-post articles on /. are well behind them.

Fantasy land

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, the lack of cats fetching a ball (compared to dogs) is caused by bad ownership. Owners are encouraging established pet role models.

When you're using words like "reeducation"

[Anonymous Coward]

It would seem to me that if you need to be "reeducating" kids about what they want, you're doing something wrong. Let's examine a few of these points in the summary.

Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science and don't steer them in that direction.

And... should they be? You seem to be coming at this from the perspective that it doesn't matter what the individuals want, there should be more women in tech because reasons.

There's this perception that coding and computer science is ... a 'brogrammer' culture for boys, for games, for competition.

A couple thoughts on this point. This retarded "brogrammer" media push has happened much more recently than 1984. I seriously doubt that people perceived it the same way back then. And even if they do now, you seem to gloss over the fact that it could simply be the result of this shrieking media push about the culture. In other words, it may be that this push has caused the results that you're looking at now.

There hasn't been enough emphasis on the power computing has in achieving social impact. That's what girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter.

Okay, you raging sexist. Let's take it down a notch for a second here. We'll just assume for a moment that you're right and that's what girls are interested in. How is it the case that "achieving social impact" and "things that matter" are the same? What a ridiculous conflation. First off, you assume that social impact is always good. Secondly, you assume that nothing else matters besides social impact. Could these be, I don't know, products of your bias?

Q. What explains the drop [since 1984] in women studying computer science? A. We commissioned original research that revealed it's primarily parents' encouragement, and perception and access.

And now for this point. I looked at the linked abstract and it only focuses on the individual's decision-making process without taking into account factors that the individual may use. For example, it doesn't even bother to look at hours worked. And then has the gall to call the perceptions of the field "flawed." It still blows my mind that every time this comes up, almost nobody talks about the elephant in the room: Women are smarter and value their time better than men in general.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/19/gifted-men-earn-more-than-gifted-women-and-they-value-time-differently-but-both-report-being-happy/
http://www.bentley.edu/centers/center-for-women-and-business/millennials-workplace
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/professional-women-time_n_1068291.html

There are more if you're curious about this phenomenon.

If we look at the numbers for women in CS, we see:
http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding-d463ab944849ed2fce2df3d7d27d2f1c4daa7689.jpg?s=1400

I looked pretty deep trying to find a graph of hours worked in the sector since the mid-1980s (or earlier too), but couldn't find anything. The closest thing I could find was "services" sector hours worked, which I assume includes things like restaurants and so on. Not very useful for this purpose. If hours being worked was a part of the discussion at all, you would think that information would be a bit easier to find. But it's not, despite the fact that it's probably kind of important. If anybody can wrangle that info somehow, I'd love to see it.

That said, if we look at when the Internet hit big (circa 1995), we see a lag time before the sharp dropoff. Once the Internet became popular, 24/7 on call became a common thing and hours worked went way up. If the industry is the input and schooling is the output of that industry, you would expect something like this.

Pissing and moaning about "the culture" doesn't seem all that useful, especially because it paints women as delicate beings that need everyone around them to give them big toothy smiles and pats on the head. I don't deny that there is likely to be a perception problem (or more than one perception problem), but the question is whose perception problem(s) it is/they are.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[lgw]

Someone with mod points please mod this up - it's seemingly the only non-trolling post for this whole story. This is exactly the stuff we should be discussing here - agree or not with the conclusion, this is the rational topic at hand.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[Anonymous Coward]

This brogrammer meme is annoying. I've never heard the word before a year and a half ago, and I've never encountered a professional (working, paid) male programmer who could be described as a "bro."

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[IamTheRealMike]

LOL

Okay, you raging sexist. Let's take it down a notch for a second here ......... [short time later] ....... It still blows my mind that every time this comes up, almost nobody talks about the elephant in the room: Women are smarter and value their time better than men in general.

Plank in your eye before speck in your brothers, etc.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Except one of those things is supported by evidence. I see no evidence presented for "girls care about social impact."

I also personally think it makes them smarter to value their time better - there's only one resource that is universally finite in the human experience, and that's time. Feel free to interpret that how you will, but I also think that men that value their time better than the average man are smarter too.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: 'This retarded "brogrammer"'. You fucking asshole. Leave intellectually disabled persons out of your silly ass arguments about completely unrelated topics than that much more serious issue.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[SuperKendall]

Pretty sure the "brogrammer" is a creature wholly found in Silicon Valley (MAYBE NYC). As you say in practice I've never found a professional programmer that comes close to this.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[dev-in-seattle]

I have known one brogrammer in 20+ years as a professional dev. He was a huge pain in the ass. They are rare but I guess they exist. This was in Seattle.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, in the current insane PC environment, I feel better working with another men than dancing around damsels that take anything as a personal insult or worse confuse friendliness with sexual innuendo. Particularly when they tend have zero passion for what they do, show zero interest in getting better and are to damn cowards to make decisions on their own.

Sure, thats a generalization and I'm sure you'll find plenty of counter-examples, but the above is a decent rule of thumb for all practical purposes.

Add to the mix the increasingly toxic nature of gender relationships (thank you feminism) and is no surprise that most males are increasingly cautious when dealing with female coworkers.

Re:When you're using words like "reeducation"

[juanfgs]

huh? a lone brogrammer? who was his bro?

That's it google..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it google.... starting from today I'm definately switching to duckduckgo.com

Personal interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Disgusting straight white cishet male shitlord here.

My parents, particularly my dad, discouraged me from pursuing any kind of work with computers. He wanted me to go into trades (blue collar, not Wall Street) like he did, specifically to follow in his footsteps and continue his one-man business as a painter. Then you've got the whole NEEERRRRD thing from the jocks in schools. In short, many males aren't particularly pushed into STEM either. They take it upon themselves, under their own agency, to pursue those goals. I wonder how so many boys who got bullied for their STEM related interests throughout their young lives managed to stick to their interests and goals. It must be the penis.

Except that women who enter STEM (to actually WORK in a field) are in the same boat. They see past any discouragement from their families/pees, and they ignore all the "I deserve a free-ride into the field" rhetoric from gender ideologues, and they put in the time and effort to become proficient with whatever it is they want to do. Granted, there's fewer of them than men ...BUT DON'T YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT EACH GENDER MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT CAREER PROCLIVITIES.

Re:Personal interests

[Areyoukiddingme]

Disgusting straight white cishet male shitlord here.

Dude. Therapy. Damn.

Re:Personal interests

[Anonymous Coward]

No two males are the same. No two females are the same.

From where do we imagine that two entire genders should be the same?

Google is not EEO compliant

[Anonymous Coward]

If Google has a diversity chief, they cannot be EEO compliant.

The existence of trans people is proof of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh.

The existence of trans people should've confirmed this. I'm MtF, and it's a stereotype that all MtFs work in tech (it's my favorite trans stereotype, actually). MtFs are overrepresented in the tech industry, and FtMs are underrepresented.

The only possible explanation is that whatever biases us for or against tech occurs in childhood, well before transition.

I know when this issue will end...

[Anonymous Coward]

When accounting show to companies that they are spending more on compaigns for more women programming than the money they could save from the deflated salaries of the bigger workforce they expect to have in the end.

Re:UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like the days of 1000-post articles on /. are well behind them.

What if they figure out how to combine H1-B, GamerGate, systemd, and US Presidential politics into one story?

Arrogant bastards

[Runaway1956]

Google presumes to know what is good for boys and girls. They presume to know better than the parents of those boys and girls. They presume to know more than the boys and girls themselves.

I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.

What is WRONG with little girls who just want to be girls? Why does every girl have to grow up to compete with the boys for a job? What if she doesn't WANT a job?

Like Obama, Google doesn't WANT women to have the traditional occupation of "home maker". Like Obama, Google places no value on those home makers.

Arrogant SOB's.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[King_TJ]

Exactly.... Personally, I don't see the problem with the concept that some jobs are predominantly of interest to one sex over the other? Isn't this exactly why we had predominantly females in nursing for decades? There simply weren't as many guys interested in doing that particular job (though obviously, *some* do, and that's fine too).

What I do see is some blow-back from the fact that with mostly guys making video games, the games have catered mostly to guys. You do have more females interested in actually playing games now, instead of just watching the guys do it. So yeah, there's some understandable irritation that the games are almost all "guy-centric". But most people who play video games don't have an interest in WRITING them, just like most people who drive cars don't want to become auto mechanics or work in the auto industry.

Ultimately though, markets always follow the money, so even if it takes a bunch of male programmers to do it, they'll build more titles that appeal to females if that's an untapped market. No social manipulation required here.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[cowdung]

I don't think they presume.. they have more data on each of us than we have on ourselves!!

They probably know what you're doing right now!

(I'm safe, I have a tin foil hat)

Re:Arrogant bastards

[PopeRatzo]

I'm sick of all this social engineering. I just want to barf.

You mean social engineering like this?

http://www.strengthvillain.com...

https://jonathanturley.files.w...

http://thetoydetectives.com/co...

https://alanabeeblog.files.wor...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnne...

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Runaway1956]

The market is there. The market exists. It is here, now. The toy manufacturers are catering to an already demonstrated predilection. Mattel didn't create the tendency for little girls to like one kind of thing and little boys to like another. At most, they reinforce those tendencies. Mommies and daddies apparently approve of those tendencies, because they also reinforce them.

We have some rather vocal female member here at slashdot. Maybe you should take a survey, to see what the worst obstacles they had, when they decided to pursue geekish careers. How many do you suppose were shot in the face, for daring to pursue male careers? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ex... How many had acid thrown in their faces? http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WO...

Let's put things in perspective here. We do NOT ban women from any occupation, unlike some more barbaric societies seem to do. Nor do we ban men from any occupation. You are free to do whatever the hell you want to do.

Except, in this case, sexist assholes passing themselves off as "enlightened" are busy trying to tell women that they must enter the STEM careers. Women who CHOOSE to be home makers have no value.

Social engineering. Google is actively trying to change society, in effect, telling us all that we don't measure up to some standard that Google has set for us.

Arrogant bastards. I don't have to measure up to their standards, and neither do my sons or daughters, or grandsons or granddaughters.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

why not this example. Take this one:

http://www.strengthvillain.com...

to the right: unrealistic expectation (but dream) of girls
to the left: unrealistic expectation (but dream) of boys

there's nothing bad about this.

2) both are happy
3) same about the expectation thing
4) both sets seem similiar, except the colors
5) boy and father as an example, but the game is unisex.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like how you've dressed up your regressive neanderthal mentality in proto-feminist clothing. It's really great that you're arguing so strongly for women's abilities to make whatever choice they want, as long as that choice is the noble endeavor of housekeeping and child-rearing, I'm sure that women will thank you for generations for helping them realize what they truly want.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

What is WRONG with little boys who just want to be boys? Why does every little boy have to grow up to compete with the girls for a job? What if he doesn't WANT a job?

Sometimes a rant seems to answer itself, but the ranter just can't stop.

Look: more people in coding == larger pool of coders == more competition == more and, all things being equal, better code. That's not particularly hard to grasp. What is hard to grasp is why all the hate from Slashdot every time someone talks about addressing systemic issues that create a barrier against half the population who might want to get into a programming career.

I smell rampant protectionism. You don't want more competition for your job. That's understandable, but quit trying to cloak it as "natural" or "correct" or paint everyone who disagrees with you as a "SJW" who can safely be derided. Because that's just not compatible with science or rationality.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[serviscope_minor]

They presume to know better than the parents of those boys and girls.

Well, gee, that's not hard. Have you ever met a parent who tries to live vicariously through their kids (i.e. about 75% of them)? A drunken hedgehog would know better than the parents of those boys and girls.

Anyway, the rest of your post is sadly misguided, because on the one hand you claim you hate social engineering, and on the other hand ignore all the social engineering which is already happening. For example: my 4yo neice claimed "girls can't do physics". Apparently kids are becoming indoctrinated with that at a very young age from peer groups---she doesn't even know what physics IS, she only knows that she as a girl can't do it.

If you truly are against social engineering, then you should be horrified at such a thing because it clearly shows that social engineering is happening.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[goose-incarnated]

How do toy soldiers encourage little boys to pursue computer programming?

(Hint: it doesn't, and you know this. You probably also realised by now that your narrative is full of holes.)

Re:Arrogant bastards

[internerdj]

"Google presumes to know what is good for boys and girls. They presume to know better than the parents of those boys and girls. They presume to know more than the boys and girls themselves." Google probably has a lot more data on what boys and girls want than either the parents or the children, probably even for a particular set of children.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

The "traditional occupation" of nearly all women prior to the mid-late 19th century was work. Be it on working the family farm, taking in mending, spinning and weaving as a cottage industry (also known as "piecework"), churning butter, raising chickens and eggs for sale, or taking produce to market, the vast majority of (non upper class) women did not act only as homemakers. Their families could not afford that luxury, which was reserved for the upper class. And in the upper class, women were expected to manage the home socially, but not do all the tasks we associate with "homemaking", which were performed by (paid) servants, usually female (unless they were butlers, valets or groomsmen). That social arrangement lasted until the industrial revolution, which pushed men into the sphere of the "workforce" and women into the sphere of the "home", particularly as home-based/cottage piecework was replaced by large factory textile production. This role for women lasted through the 1930s, and the "women's magazines" like Godey's Ladys' Book http://www.accessible-archives.com/collections/godeys-ladys-book/, the so-called Seven Sisters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sisters_(magazines), etc., were launched during that era, which also coincided with the birth of mass media advertising. Women were thereby gently schooled into "traditional" homemaking roles, helped along by the invention (and mass advertising) of appliances (automatic washers, for instance) and conveniences (read: packaged cereals, commercially-produced butter, and oleomargarine, first widely used in the US as a substitute for scarce butter during WWI and WWII, but quickly realized as a profitable product, and kept afloat as a "health food" in the postwar era). In the 1940s, when men were at the front, women became part of the workforce by necessity, because wartime industry needed their labor. After the war, the "traditional" role for women was reinvented anew, as many women lost their wartime employment and were required to go back home, to leave jobs free for returning men in the postwar boom years. Then as inflation started driving the cost of living upwards in the 1970s and beyond, women rejoined the workforce, in order to help pay for the grand American lifestyle that had been born in the affluence of the 1950s (and of course in order to fulfill their own ambitions, which conveniently became recognized as a valid thing for women to do, right at the time when their labor outside the home was needed in order to continue the upwardly-mobile spending trend as prices continued to rise). With the massive labor reductions that resulted from union-busting, shipping of jobs overseas, deregulation and free trade agreements in the 1980s-1990s, a new social movement arose, particularly among conservative Christians, stating unequivocally that women should expect to be homemakers, while men should expect to work, and casting these, ahistorically, as the only recognized, "traditional" roles for men and women. Interestingly, it seems that with the advent of ecommerce, there has been a rebirth of "cottage industry" as an acceptable employment venue for women who want to maintain their "traditional" roles as homemakers, but also bring in some income. Now many "mommy bloggers" wear their home-based employment as a badge of virtue, because it leaves them free to fulfill both the role they see as "traditional", and a (socially acceptable) economic role providing some income for the household.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that anyone is trying to force girls into STEM. What they're trying to do is make sure that girls who are interested in STEM aren't discouraged from getting into it by a sociocultural environment that says "only boys do STEM". All the encouragement in the world will not force a girl who's not keen on science or math to get into those fields, nor should it, but a supportive environment might encourage some percentage who wouldn't otherwise, if they like it and want to do it. That's all this is about.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Runaway1956]

How 'bout we go WAAAAY back, long before any industrial revolution, and even before piecework. In little villages, towns and hamlets around the world, women have always worked relatively close to home, while the men ventured out into the wilderness. The women were always close at hand when the children needed something. You can witness that in any aboriginal culture surviving in the world today. The Iroquois nation put the concept into writing, in their constitution. Women own the homes, the men own only their hunting gear, war implements, and the clothes on their backs. The women ran the lodge, and that was that.

Of course women have always worked. Where did I imply that women did NOT work? No culture that I'm aware of can afford to have half of it's population NOT WORK! Well - - - maybe today's modern welfare cultures.

Re:Arrogant bastards

[Anonymous Coward]

They are just catering to an existing market! Just like how Joe the silly cartoon camel catered to six year olds hankering for a cigarette! Your willful ignorance is shameful.

This male : female false comparison is simplistic.

[dsmatthews9379]

For one you can't describe humans as just two groups when their physical and cognitive sexual variations map out onto a two dimensional field. Sure many people fall under or near two hills in that field but to say or do anything to ignore all the others who do not is what causes real diversity problems in the first place. You just can't generalise and then set some policy based on sex.

You have to be intelligent to code well, and it is a very specific form of intelligence that often comes with weakness in other areas. So is it genetics or nurture that is responsible for that particular gift/curse? I say it is genetics and that it is also probably x-linked therefore more males are affected by it in the same way they are far more likely to suffer from x-linked disorders too. Why had this not ever occurred to people before I do not know but if you can have an x-linked disability there is the same chance that you can have x-linked abilities that are exceptional. Why are autism spectrum disorders correlated with programming skills and with being male, because they are both x-linked!

For the record my oldest girl can code like a kid twice her age can, sure I encourage her because it is a form of literacy that scientists need but she will never be somebody else's "programming slave", she will use the skill as just one facet of her projects.

Can I claim credit where others have received blame from Nancy Lee? No, my kid is just very intelligent and that is as much or more her mother's fault and if you say otherwise you are being (how ironic!) sexist.

Pick one

[Trailer Trash]

Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science

OR

and don't steer them in that direction.

Which is it? I get the feeling it's that girls just aren't that interested. People like to point out that more girls were interested in the 80s but that was a very different era. Few people actually knew what was involved with "programming computers".

All of this effort reminds me of a similar misunderstanding that I came across years ago. In the 50s Lionel decided that girls didn't play with trains because they weren't "girly" enough. They were black and steel and perhaps too boyish. So the genius marketers came up with this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadsh...
http://www.lionel.com/Products...

Should you wish to see one in person go to Holiday World and check out the old toy museum.

It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.

Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.

Ultimately, the SJW crowd needs to understand that men and women - and boys and girls - are very different creatures who aren't interested in the same sorts of things. The roots of this are genetic and stem from the social order tens of thousands of years ago. Nothing's going to "fix" it, but, then again, there's nothing to fix.

Re:Pick one

[Krishnoid]

but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.

My first instinct on reading this was to leap out of my chair and get a gift card from the hobby store, then go to the florist. Do you have her phone number?

Re:Pick one

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguments like this are precisely how we used to talk about "doctors" as a profession. Not that long ago, either - in the 1960s a female doctor was a rarity.

Now in most of Europe, they're a majority. And yes, men are making inroads into nursing, too.

Re:Pick one

[Pubstar]

Of course, most of them are Family Practice and not clinical.

Re:Pick one

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.

Just give the girls a Mattel Barbie Computer and I'm sure they will be all over computer programming like ants to sugar.

http://www.geekwire.com/2014/mattel-apologizes-horrific-barbie-book-can-computer-engineer-implies-girls-cant-code/

Re:Pick one

[Areyoukiddingme]

So the genius marketers came up with this:

http://www.lionel.com/Products...

That's... fanTASTIC. It's like the train ran over the Easter Bunny, *splat*.

Anyway, it probably failed because it's a fashion disaster. I mean really. Who wears lilac and pink at the same time?

Re:Pick one

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time steering chronically unemployed adults into programming as a field. Not due to lack of effort on my part, but due to the incredible amount of negative press on programming.

And yet, without the ability to sway adults into the field, I'm supposed to indoctrinate my child? Forget that. I'll raise her to be a whole and complete person, and if she chooses programming, then I'll help her to the best of my ability.

Back when I was a kid, (actors who represented) programmers had starring roles in movies. Tron may have sucked as cinema, but it made the programmer king. Wargames,. Three days of the Condor, Sneakers, hell... even "Lawnmower Man". R2D2 making everything open and work. Today, where are those representations? Programmers are schlubs, poor saps that never seem to get ahead due to a never ending torrent of TPS reports.

Who wants that job? Heck, even I don't want it.

Re:Pick one

[Anonymous Coward]

It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.

And she needs to name her model train engine "Steely Dan".

Re:Pick one

[twokay]

I agree the primary reason for gender inequality in a profession like programming is that broadly it appeals to men more that women. There will be other factors, for some a male dominated field will be a barrier, others may have been biased by their parents. But really, apart from actually forcing women into a job they haven't chosen to meet some quota I dont see a solution there.

I believe a women should have the same potential as a man to succeed in the profession SHE chooses HERSELF. It maybe a harder task becoming a coder than going into nursing or teaching, but I think that would be clear to anyone seriously considering it.

Personally i have seen women fit well into roles that require more people and management skills than pure coding. For example the "Scrum Master" role for any agile team (sorry for the buzzwords) bridges the coding-people skills gap.

However i think there is a major factor that seems to be overlooked in these discussions -- gender equality in politics. If there is any area where women should be encouraged to participate it is here. After all they are 50% of the electorate and more representation here would give the real instances of inequality a stronger voice.

Or Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

it's that you are still actually a Man, and transpeople should be treated for their unfortunate mental illness instead of getting pandered to?

I'm just ask saying.

Everytime I see a woman programmer with a long history and go on wikipedia, they were inevitably born with a name like David.

Re:Or Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

they were inevitably born with a name like David.

or Chris

Blame game

[kuzb]

We're so busy trying to play the blame game that nobody has actually asked the young girls what they want to do with their lives.

Re:Blame game

[Anonymous Coward]

But those tech execs have already decided what those little girls want to do with their lives so why bother asking them?

Re:Blame game

[StikyPad]

Because we affect what they want. There is no a-priori desire for Happy Meals. Surprise! -- after genetics, we're all an effect of our environments.

Re:Blame game

[Anonymous Coward]

We're so busy trying to play the blame game that nobody has actually asked the young girls what they want to do with their lives.

They don't really know, just like the young boys. They throw out things they heard and pick up on how adults and other kids react to the stuff they say without a whole lot of background knowledge.

A lot of female engineering students I know here are from a boy-less family (or only younger brothers) with an engineering father. If those girls say they want to become engineers, they don't get an amusedly shaking head but a proud father. The minute there is an older boy with talent, expectations turn there.

It's not as much the biological but the cultural genes that are at work here, and frankly that's embarrassing. Now especially if we assume that men and women think differently, then it would be stupid not to have an alternative way of thinking available in research fields.

So it makes sense working on changing the cultural genes. It won't happen in a day, and I'm not sure that diversity initiatives and quotas are all that helpful. You don't create an Emmy Noether that way. The intellectual highlights turn to their profession because it's close to impossible to discourage them from it. But science is not only feeding off the rare self-driven genius.

Re:Blame game

[kuzb]

If you think kids are mindless automatons that are incapable of thinking for themselves I'd invite you to smash your own head in with a brick. No really, that's world class idiocy that nobody needs and I'm sick to death of useless people who see kids as devices that require constant reprogramming.

Kids today have access to more information now than anyone from any previous generation. While some of them will give out lazy answers and make no effort, there are some who will definitely try to make an informed decision. No amount of promoting will change this.

Poetry in Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Just market coding as poetry to the "mamas" and they get their baby girls onboard the CS-train.

Re:Poetry in Code

[allo]

and use a php project as prime example m(

If I had a daughter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but I would steer her away from computer science as well. Simply put, I saw too much sexual harassment during my undergraduate days to even harbour the thought that this is a safe environment for young women. If she's interested in coding, there are plenty of other career paths that allow for it. Most of the sciences offer a much safer environment for women, while offering the possibility to delve more deeply into computer science than many computer science programs. Ditto for mathematics.

Re:If I had a daughter ...

[Oligonicella]

"Personal experience" comments from AC's are worthless.

Re:If I had a daughter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They are worth as much as a non-AC.

Better Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

A better argument is that computer science was only popular for women while it was seen as a type of secretarial work. Since computer usage has migrated away from shuffling paper cards, moving data platters, and tape reels, women have left the industry, due to societial pressure to keep women in either secretary positions, teaching positions or nurse positions.

sexist

[johncandale]

"girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter." And boys don't? fuck you, I am tired of male hate everywhere. Be mad more we tend to just be better

The actual google study is worth a read

[dlenmn]

(Full disclosure: I am neither female nor a parent; I'm a male who studies physics.)

There are too many links in the summary. The most relevant one is the google study, which has some interesting data and is fairly neutral. I don't think the study supports the flamebait headline, but instead paints a complicated picture. In particular, see the charts on page 5 of the study.

The story headline is in the same style as this interesting article titled "Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses". That article makes the case that interests in "girly" things are not mutually exclusive with interests in STEM fields. There are anecdotes in the above comments about girls being pressured by parents into STEM activities (like robotics clubs), and how it often doesn't work. Perhaps this is because some parents push STEM at the expense of "girly" things rather than simply encouraging STEM without taking a hostile stance towards "girly" things.

Just a thought.

Re:The actual google study is worth a read

[Anonymous Coward]

"Papas, please let your babies grow up to be princesses"

I know that title isn't particularly accurate, but I take issue with the whole "princesses" deal. Absolutely, let your daughter's be as girly as they like. I agree that feminine is not the opposite of tech/science/whatever.

However, holding up princess as a role model? What the hell is a princess? Someone entitled (literally!), someone who receives all they have thru an accident of birth & not thru any character of their own. Disney should be ashamed.

Parents, encourage & love your children. Help them explore, help them learn how to apply them themselves, help them experience & cope with failure, help them consider others, expose them to all kinds of learning opportunities (tech & otherwise). As career planning begins to loom on the horizon, talk with them about their interests & needs.

But don't tell them that they are a princess - you're doing them a disservice.

look at it from the political angle

[Anonymous Coward]

There are congressmen and congresswomen, whom are opposed to racial and gender inequality. Congress is very powerful. Silicon Valley companies have come under attack for hiring primarily white males, and asians. Google is participating in the counter attack, by sponsoring research on why there are not many women programmers, which would be a theory, on why not many women programmers would work at Google. Another theory, would be gender discrimination by Google. One theory has bad political consequences for Google. The other does not.

It also helps push the narrative of Silicon Valley, that America does not produce enough coders, so it need to import more foreign programmers to remain competitive.

These articles show the political battle taking place between Silicon Valley, and DC.

Key word being "Diversity Chief"

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, when your job is to make diversity happen, you might be pretty keen to create a diversity problem where none exists.

I'll start you off:

"Where are the men in midwifery?"

Re:Yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

What fucking year is this 1999?

so basically ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the problem with women is women? Check!

BS

[allo]

Nobody steered me. The opposite is true, i had strict times for pc usage. I learned the whole programming stuff by myself, using not more than some turbo pascal book.
I steered myself, because i knew what i liked.

So, nobody should steer anyone. People just need to open opportunities. The rest will come by itself.

Are you sure you're using 'diverse' correctly?

[Krishnoid]

To ensure a statistically relevant study with a high level of confidence (95% or better) and a small margin of error (5% or less), 1000 women and 600 men were surveyed in partnership with the research firm Applied Marketing Science, in accordance with the following:

• Respondents were geographically and academically diverse, from all available regions and colleges across the United States.

I guess diversity means different things to different people. Although, I should have gotten the hint from the first page:

Editor’s Note: Throughout this white paper we report findings ...

It's Friday already?

[Pubstar]

It's Friday already? Shit, why am I getting ready for work.

Re:It's Friday already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to post this.

Stop this bullshit SJW slashdot.

[r.freeman]

Stop this bullshit SJW slashdot.

Re:Stop this bullshit SJW slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

this++

Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does this subject keep coming up when no one has stated why it is a problem.

Way back, women in computing held what where essentially clerical jobs. Programmers handed them the stack of punch cards and it was the women that fed it in. This is what people are calling a decline of women, because those clerical jobs went away obviously.

Name some female computer scientists from the 50's-70's, even if they didn't contribute anything of note. There are a few, unlike today.

Forcing uninterested people into any field just to fulfil some quota that if filled would offer nothing different than what things are today.

There are more women than men enrolled in college today.
Math, Chemistry and Economics programs are pretty close to 50% women.
Physics, Engineering and CS are not.

What can a woman bring to computer science and programming that men can't? Answer: nothing.

Not enough female garbage womyn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm very upset about the lack of diversity in the waste removal profession. I hope there will be programs to help and help encourage women to get into this field!

Manufactured Hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the usual PC BS that modern companies are forced to deal with. Girls themselves are not interested in tech on the whole - most of the ones who go into "tech" are there looking for a tech-guy to hook up with/marry. I saw it many times when I was going through training and the women were near-invariably coasting through lazily, doing the bare minimum to almost-pass, while they were checking out the guys. The reason: he's a (generally) safe bet for a steady and decent check.

This constant manufactured hysteria reminds me of the garbage rape statistics of 1-in-4, debunked by the FBI themselves a couple of decades ago. Yet still these morons produce these BS "statistics" aka lies for their own warped agenda. "We must engage girls more" - BS! If the girl's themselves aren't interested in the slightest, just *how* are they going to engage them more? Strap them into a chair and force them to watch, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange? Chain them to their desks until they reach a 95% pass mark - or die from thirst/starvation?

To these PC idiots in the media: get a grip!

Re: UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh...

Just suggesting such a thing could crash the Internet.

What a fucking sexist

[Anonymous Coward]

"...achieving social impact. That's what girls are interested in. They want to do things that matter"

As the Director of Diversity and Inclusion, Nancy LeeShe must be speaking to the biggest echo chamber in the world. Can she not hear how ridiculously sexist she is?

Re:Yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

What fucking year is this 1999?

Can't be, if it was 1999 we'd all be taking vacations to Moonbase Alpha... and maybe a longer journey once the nuclear waste dumps blew up....

Why keep attempting social engineering?

[DavidinAla]

Why can some people not accept that other people make choices that they don't necessarily approve of? Why do we have to assume that half the software developers SHOULD be women? Why can't we simply let people make the choices that make the most sense to them and their own interests? It's insane to pretend that it's a problem when an industry has a gender disparity. As long as everyone has the ability to choose a field if he wants it, that's all that matters. After that point, you're trying to force people into making decisions that you think they ought to make. It's just another form of idiotic social engineering. Just let individuals decide what's best for themselves.

Re:Why keep attempting social engineering?

[david_thornley]

There are gender-related differences, but we have no good way of telling what they are or how big they are.

However, when women are underrepresented in a higher-paying field, we've often found that there was some discrimination going on. Men are often blind to the extra problems women face (the same is true in reverse, of course), and if we can find some unnoticed reasons keeping women out of programming we can try to deal with them.

alternate explanation:

[Anonymous Coward]

girls know a bad deal when they see one.

fuck "coding".

Backwards

[SuperKendall]

He's just saying that making the choice to be home-maker should be just as valid for women as any other choice they could make. And he's right; it's not even close currently, as many look down on "homemaker" almost as much as they would "prostitute" or "stripper".

Why should choosing to be a home-maker be a choice any less honorable? And YES that also goes for Men, though if you think about it there's less of a societal stigma for men becoming a house maker than a woman!

Re:Backwards

[Runaway1956]

Thank you. "Homemaker" is an honorably profession - more so for females than for males, in my opinionated opinion, but SOMEONE has to provide those thousands of little services that no one is paid to provide.

And, you are more than right - today, homemakers are looked upon as neanderthals, just as AC implied. Hell, I'm a neanderthal just because I want women to BE permitted to stay at home IF they want to.

In my own life, my wife stayed home for a few years. She was there for the boys, day in and day out, except for those occassions when she informed us that we were all on our own, and she would head off to a sister's house for the weekend or something.

When the youngest boy entered third grade, she announced that she was tired of sitting at home, and that she was going to get a job. I was a bit upset, but I never even TOLD her that it upset me. I just shut my face, and watched. The woman managed to get the hours she needed, so that she arrived home when the boys did. She managed everything very much like she did when she was "homemaker", but she also felt that she was participating in life as well.

Women should have the CHOICE - and neither I NOR people like AC should be judging, bullying, or belittling a woman for the choice she makes.

Google is full of sh*t

[Anonymous Coward]

My spouse and I have discouraged our son and daughter from coding because Google et al outsource overseas. I alone have been outsourced 3 times, received poor raises and dwindling advances in training. I call Google's research bull crap.

Misleading and wrong

[SuperKendall]

Coding jobs can be easily outsourced to wherever the going rate for labor is cheapest.

SOME coding jobs can be, but many cannot - there is aways going to be a market for good coders that pays far above minimum wage, and is also vastly more enjoyable than most other jobs.

At the very least we should not steer people away from a career than can be very enjoyable, even if you are right about pay dropping (which I see no sign of for good coders)...

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't push girls into programming exactly but we should present appealing options for them to learn (like all girl coding camps), just for the sake of more women making a more informed choice as to what to study in college.

Re:Misleading and wrong

[dev-in-seattle]

[replying to the idea that coding only pays minimum wage] SOME coding jobs can be, but many cannot - there is aways going to be a market for good coders that pays far above minimum wage, and is also vastly more enjoyable than most other jobs.

Thank you, that is so true, it depends on where you live I guess. I work for a start up in Seattle, we pay market rates, and it's hard to even get people to interview with us. Send me a private message and I'll give you the link to the company. We'd like to hire UI, backend, dev ops, data scientist. If you can't find a job, and you are a dev, come to seattle. If you don't believe me, look at glassdoor for companies in seattle. Google, microsoft, and amazon salaries for different kinds of devs seem accurate based on my personal experience. An intern makes $75k plus here in Seattle. Forget about minimum wage. If you live in a place where you are a software engineer and you make barely above minimum wage, you need to move. Those salaries at Glassdoor are not fake.

Re:Oh look!

[gweihir]

Aehm, you did it to yourself?

A Policy Paper on a Related Field and More

[ChuckDivine]

All,

I have worked in IT for most of my adult life. Before getting into IT though, I actually worked as a physicist and did grad work first in physics and then, believe it or not, in social psychology. That, plus a few art hobbies (think photography and writing), managed to get me into the people side of IT in particular and science and tech in general.

Back in 2006 I became a leader of a committee in the Governor's Workforce Investment Board in Maryland. I and my team learned a great deal about problems in aerospace in particular and tech fields in general. I have stored the written documents of my committee on my blog. My page Aerospace Initiative Home Page is a useful introduction to my committee's work. That page has links to my committee's work. There is a great deal there.

I also wrote a much briefer public policy paper Aerospace Workforce Issues that is a quick summary of what I and my team discovered.

Very briefly, poor, sometimes abusive management and poor work life balance is causing young people to stay away from tech fields in general. Worker abuse also causes projects to fail. Exhausted workers do not perform well. People here might try reading Stanley Coren's Sleep Thieves to learn more about this. Demarco and Lister in Peopleware bring this up as well.

Enough -- probably way too much -- for now.

This makes the most sense so far ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Then again, I've been saying this for years.

Why the same article

[Anonymous Coward]

With the rapidly rising influence of feminism on the Web and the related backlash movements, it seems like we could be having an interesting, intellectual discussion about what is going on, and how it's affecting tech culture. Yet instead we get this weekly "girls can be brogrammers too!!!!!11!!!!one!!!" article. This time with a healthy dose of Google marketing to boot. I don't get it.

Slashdot editors: Give us a break, just post this to your Facebook timeline. We've been reading this same article every week. We've been having the same discussion every week. I'm not opposed to the message (in fact I'm interested, which is why I keep clicking on this crap) but this is so one-dimensional and biased that I can't take it seriously. Please, stop.

Re:Why the same article

[russotto]

With the rapidly rising influence of feminism on the Web and the related backlash movements, it seems like we could be having an interesting, intellectual discussion about what is going on, and how it's affecting tech culture.

Seriously? Have you ever tried to have a discussion with a (third-wave intersectional) feminist? First they yell mansplaining, then they yell derailing, then they yell for the authorities, and if that doesn't work they cut off communication.

Re:Why the same article

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I was imagining more of a discussion *about* them rather than *with* them. Slashdot's web 1.0 styling scares most of them away anyway.

Re:Why the same article

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand the 'victim' mentality. Once you start claiming you are a 'victim' you can start claiming you need all kinds of free handouts, forced 'equality', etc. It also requires far less work, and then once you discover you're still a miserable piece of work after getting all you said you wanted, you can again find new ways to claim 'victimhood' over it.

Self Serving Advertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the Google Old Boy Network will fight to kill the establishment and growth of an Old Girl Network.

Ha ha

Can't POSSIBLY be because women get paid less

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time someone trots out the roughly 25% less pay citation, someone else trots out "b-b-b-b-but if that were true, companies would be hiring a ton of women!!1!"

Well.

Re:Can't POSSIBLY be because women get paid less

[Anonymous Coward]

If they could get the same amount of hours and the same quality of work for 25% less, you bet your ass they would be hiring women like crazy. Heck, then they could use *that* to undercut the pay for H1-Bs even more, and start laying off the women en-masse for imported H1-B workers eventually.

Diverse eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your average age?

Re:Yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

But you have to admit, they're really good at getting press on how 'victimized' they are.

Good, lets blame parents...

[Karmashock]

... because that won't go anywhere and we can drop the whole subject.

People enter the careers they want to enter and they don't enter the careers they don't.

Why do you even want women in tech? I see no outcry for women to enter industrial mining or the lumber industry...

Here someone will say "but those require physical strength"... not really. Mining is increasingly being done with robots or very large machines. No one in the first world is going into a mine shaft with a pickaxe to chip rock.

And even if they were, if feminists are pushing women to be marines and special forces people then clearly the physical aspect is not something that daunts them in all cases.

And as to lumber... again, there are plenty of jobs using big machines that don't take any strength to use really.

So why this insistence on coding for women when they clearly aren't interested in it?

Listen, a lot of coding involves sitting alone and explaining things to a computer in extreme technical detail. There is very little socialization in it. And the computer isn't going to appreciate your social skills any more than your semi autistic coworkers. You're going to sit there... alone... arguing with a computer. And whether you're good or bad is going to be determined on little more than how logical and rational you are. I'm not saying women aren't logical or rational... but they tend to get burned out if that is how they have to think and operate 100 percent of the time. Some women can handle that without a problem. And some women are better at it then most men.

But most women are not. And since we're talking about statistics, it is unlikely you're ever going to get real parity here.

Here is what we need... "equal opportunity"... be willing to hire women or men with the same qualifications. But do not favor either. And don't worry about whether your office is 100 percent one gender or the other. It doesn't matter. What matters is IF you would be just as happy to hire either gender if they have the right skills.

Take the special forces issue above... if I were a general, I'd be just as happy to allow a given woman into the special forces IF she passed the same tests the men passed. If she does... she's in. And she'll there after have to keep passing the same tests the men pass.

Basically, you need to be gender blind. You judge things on an individual by individual basis and put the mission first.

If I'm running a coding outfit, then my issue is not your vagina or penis. My issue is the code. If you can code and you don't cause problems for my organization, then welcome to the team.

If you either suck at coding or you're a problem maker... then fuck off. I don't need you screwing up my operation.

End of issue.

No encouragement at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I had no encouragement at all and no computer at home until i finished my sophomore year in college.

Even then it was more an interest in CG art than programming. A couple of pissant programming courses in the beginning with nother interesting. Then I serious scientific programming course my sr. year and i discovered: "This shit is easy!" Then I discovered: "This shit pays well!"

Evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this problem with evolution, which thanks to the adversarial process, streamlines the person into specializing in one or the next capability. Assuming the environment stays the same, you would find that every person eventually becomes precisely able to survive in the current circumstance. However, environments change, and genetically, if you stay with one skill or are not able to adapt to the environment, you die out. The argument now becomes, as one becomes aware of the artifice of the man made environment, a question of whether we are able to adapt in the future or only adapt to the artificial one. As everyone knows, the evolutionary knife is the one that excises the adversary that is only skilled at that one thing when the environment changes. Since the environment is artificial anyway, then shouldn't it be also a good idea to artificially help women in this field, and i daresay the vice versa should happen as well.

Back to the 1970s...

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Story about a Female ChemEng major

[Guppy]

males/boy choose masculine jobs/toys (e.g., coding... yes, its "masculine"!) while females/girls choose feminine jobs/toys (e.g., nurses... good for them!)

This is just an anecdote (and thus worthless as data), but I have a family friend -- a female -- who earned a B.S. in chemical engineering. Dad was an engineer, and I think mom was a scientist, so she was highly encouraged (well, pressured) to go in a STEM direction. And she did it, she managed to pass all the math courses and crunch all the equations, earned her degree. And as a newly-minted female Chemical Engineer, I"m guessing a lot of companies were interested in hiring her, as they have been making intense efforts to fix the gender imbalance in their workforces.

Guess what happened next? She then proceeded to go back to Nursing School, and has since graduated and now does clinical nursing work. Basically, she paid four years of hard study and tuition to make other people feel good about make the "right" decisions for someone else's life, and only after satisfying them did she get to live her own life doing what she wanted to do.

Re:Story about a Female ChemEng major

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Your example is great and relevant to a point the documentary i posted is making - if females are *really free* to make their own decisions, then they choose feminine jobs/toys.

Things That Matter != Computers?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Evolution. Biology.

[Qbertino]

Women want to have babies.
Men want to have sex.

If all things go right, women get a man who not only does the 5-minute job but also is a provider.
If all goes well for the man, he gets good sex regularly.

That's a broad simplification, but that's what it boils down to on an evolutionary scale.
It is this that determines our behaviour on a broad range, at least with the majority which are heterosexuals.

I see it every weekend when I go out Tango dancing - saw again and everywhere just this pentecost weekend on a Tango retreat in fact. Career power women who earn thrice my paygrade dressing up all girly-like and melting away in those awesome dance-teachers arms (meh!) or in mine (huzaaa!) when the best where taken. Me, an insecure geek/nerd with social issues going all manly and cool and feeling like a god, embracing women so beautyful you wouldn't believe it. It's a formalised environment where I can't go too wrong if I follow the rules.

Don't get me wrong, a huge part of the way things are is a grown culture that could use some fixing, but the essence is pretty much evolutionary biology at work. I wouldn't say it's all that bad and I wouldn't say it's a disaster if my daughter doesn't go into tech.

I would love to see it, but I won't force her.

Re:Evolution. Biology.

[serviscope_minor]

Women want to have babies.
Men want to have sex.

Holy crap you're an idiot. Women do in fact have libidos.

And they're right

[Anonymous Coward]

What parents in their own mind would let their child choose a low-paying, high-stress profession with very scarce career options and that can and is easily outsourced? The glory days of programming are long over. It's a thankless job and the wages will go lower and lower. Any parent who thinks coding is a good career choice for their kids should have them taken away by Social Services.

What's wrong with socialsm?

[LostMyBeaver]

I like socialism. I pay 49.6% federal income tax in a socialist country on about $250,000 U.S. and if someone needs some, they get some and the 24 hour gas stations don't have locks on doors or fancy windows to protect the clerk. We have the highest standard of living in the world. We also always score way above the US in every category except military spending. We even recently learned that 70% of the population is atheist or agnostic.

I'm guessing you live where people consider it a status symbol to live where there are security gates and your housemaid's children are dressed in rags and in school with torn up 20 year old books.

The U.S. is the only socialist country in the world hellbent on proving it doesn't work... so much so, they'll make their own people suffer to prove it. The civilized countries attempt to manage cost control, but no one would ever consider medical care or education as optional. What kind of a moron would ever want to pay 50 years of taxes for supporting a sick guy who can't work instead of paying his doctors bill and getting his ass back to the work. Also what kind of an idiot would want to retire in a country full of fast food clerks draining the economy when you could instead have educated people feeding into the social security system?

Re:What's wrong with socialsm?

[mrjimorg]

1. It's interesting that you didn't specify your country so we could check your facts
2. 1/3 of all Mexicans live the in US. Do you have the 1/3 poorest of a third world nation living in your country? You can't have socialism and open borders and we have both
3. You say you pay 49.6% of your income in taxes. After paying income tax, state income tax, property tax and sales tax I pay more than that. If you factor in the tax that my employer pays on all income he pays me, and the loss of corporate income due to the highest corporate income tax in the world I pay a LOT more than that. To rub salt in the wounds, if I were to work in other countries I would have to my my country's taxes as well as the other, and if I attempt to leave this country behind I get taxes substantially on everything that I own - even though I already paid taxes on the money already. When you add the death tax in for all the money I leave my family I think you'd be strained to find other countries that pay more taxes
4. We have socialized medicine here, but only for one group - our vets. Every 4 years the media 'expose' how bad it is and the politician wave their hands and promise to fix it, but don't. Their medical system atrocious and I don't wish it upon anyone - especially my own family.
5. Socialism is the antithesis of freedom. Someone is going to make the important decisions in your life. Is it going to be you - who actually cares, or a politician thousands of miles away who doesn't know you and really doesn't care? Given the choice, I choose freedom! I just wish there were politicians I could vote for who represent that.

Re:What's wrong with socialsm?

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

I'm guessing your country also doesnt have loads of non-whites living in it.

Re:UNSUBSCRIBE SLASHDOT-FEMINISM

[Anonymous Coward]

I still like "news for birds, stuff that splatters" better.
Can't remember where I saw it first.

slashdot was run over by feminists

[ruir]

Well slashdot, fuck you. I do not support sexist outlets.

Dead end career

[Anonymous Coward]

The women I worked with very clearly stated they did not want their children to go into computers. Sure, the pay is good. But with the long hours, no overtime pay, high stress, and offshoring of jobs to India and China where they pay so much less, computer jobs are nowhere near as good as they seem.

Plus salaries have not increased as fast as they used to with jobs being shipped overseas and H-1B visa workers brought in. Age discrimination is rampant, so after you turn 40 you are likely to be unemployed. Even at Google the average age of workers is 29!

So mamas have good reason not to let their babies grow up to be coders.

Coding is a dead-end job

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're just discussing coding, I don't blame them. Coding is a dead-end job, eventually to be automated so that most people's perception of coding will be more like scripting around a predefined system than building it from scratch. Poor work-life balance, being put out to pasture at 40, constant retraining requirements, who needs it? Actual Computer Science is a rewarding field, but more research oriented positions are hard to come by outside of academia. I have a junior programmer at my work who is excellent. But she's already decided to get an MBA and be in charge of coders.

What insight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't realize that not forcing your kids to become programmers was bad parenting. Whatever happened to letting kids do what they want with their own lives?

Nancy Lee didn't go into STEM either

[JeffOwl]

Why didn't she go into STEM? Does she regret that decision? Would her life have been better if she had dropped all this diversity nonsense and pursued a career in programming instead? Or is this not really about the girls and women, but rather about benefits to the company? Note that I actually believe there is a practical benefit to the company from genuine diversity.

what about outside of USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Armenia, the percentage of women programmers are much higher than the US. And it's a bit ironic since Armenia stayed rather patriarchal after coming out of the Soviet Union. One reason I've heard from a head of a programming school in Armenia is that such positions work well with family life. I haven't talked with women programmers in Armenia so I don't have their take on this but when I look at my linked in contacts of Armenian programmers and their contacts, women's presence is quite high.

Here's an article I found related to this: http://livecode.com/breaking-the-rules-female-dominated-company-wins-tech-contest-entering-the-global-app-market/

Women don't want to program

[StikyPad]

"fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers"

In other words, *women* don't want to be programmers. But we already knew that because there is no grand conspiracy keeping them out of the field. The reason this is a "problem" is because there's money on the table. Nobody cares that garbage collectors are almost entirely men, or that daycare providers are almost entirely women. Nobody is shocked that most men would -- quite literally -- rather pick up other people's dirty diapers than deal with children all day, or vice versa. It's not a crisis that men don't want to go shoe shopping. But somehow it's a crisis that women don't want to stare at screens making sure implementations conform to interfaces and creating custom data structures.

Google, Focus on Discouragement Instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer Science is a difficult field that requires hard work, self-teaching, and self-motivation, which can't be replaced with encouragement from parents (whether you're a boy or girl - it has to come from genuine interest).

That being said, less parental discouragement would be great, for a kid that already has a slight interest or skill in the field. (For example, not telling a girl who's struggling in a math class that "it's okay because girls aren't good at math". Math is hard enough for anyone, you don't need another excuse to try less!) Maybe they can fight that "less discouragement" battle before they start in on the "more encouragement" argument.

Gender: Nurture or Nature?

[MightyDrunken]

An interesting programme I watched was "Horizon: Is Your Brain Male or Female?". The title is a bit crap but some of the experiments were interesting, like the observation that Barbary macaques seemed to be drawn to toys along gender lines. The boys going for the cars while the female macaques preferring the dolls.

The most interesting experiment, I thought, was when they observed how adults treated babies. For instance they tended to treat the boys as more robust pushing them more in physical environments while being gentler with the girls. They dressed up the babies as boys or girls so the same child was treated differently when presented as a different gender.

I guess the general outcome was that it is a bit of both nurture and nature, as pretty much any complex thing is. My thought is that culture is the overriding factor, different cultures or times can choose whether a profession like nursing is "for" men or women.

Don't they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a Google village to raise a girl.

A new way to say old things...

[GoCrazy]

I'm not sure why this claim is revolutionary. Parents clearly set the basis for what children are interested in.

News for nerds

[phorm]

That everyone and their dogs seems to be worrying about this IS news for nerds, especially as it may affect the current/future careers of many IT nerds. I don't see slashdot saying "women should be coders", I see "group A says there aren't enough women coders [because of culture/etc]" and "group B says it's actually because they're not raised with an interest in coding"

Joke heard a couple of days ago

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And it's worth a repost here

-Women aren't in tech because the STEM world is misogynistic
-I'll bet you are a women's studies major
-Yes I am, what has that got to do with it?
-Why didn't you study STEM?