I don't like idea of the the X-Spam header showing up in clients, because spammers will just start adding that. Like, uh, they have.
If we're going to do that, we need to define an actual header that you're not allowed to send in mail messages, that the receiving mail server has to strip out. (And optionally add their own.)
Actually, what we might want to do is add a header that lists which other headers were added by the receiving mail server. Or just to mark a place above which new recipient headers are added.
Oh, and while you're at it, make sure your mail server isn't on the IP that the A record points to.
Spam software is designed by total morons, apparently, and there is indeed some percentage that just totally ignores MX records, sending to the domain's A record.
But spammers implementing retries would slow down their spam sending by quite a lot, as they'd actually have to keep track of it.
And it would not help at all in combination with spamtrap blacklisting, either local or remote. There are plenty of people, myself included, that run their own 'bad address' blacklist...you send to a certain invalid email address, you're blacklisted for a while. And there are the big, publicly accessibly lists that operate essentially the same way.
If you use that on top of greylisting (Which, sadly, I cannot because of the delay) by the time anyone gets around to getting back to you, that IP is blacklisted.
If you're worried about speed or something, just add the MX last record.
That causes absolutely no overhead 99.999% of the time. But plenty of spammers go straight to the last record. (On the theory that backup MX servers might not be running as much antispam check.)
Also, I'm not sure that listing a fake address is a good idea. Might want to list a real one, that you actually own, that doesn't have a mail server on it.
Yeah, I can't use greylisting for the same reason.
As we're essentially in one time zone, I've played with the idea of greylisting only at night. Haven't seen a program to do that, but it shouldn't be that hard. (I guess I could always rewrite a postfix lookup table every time it changed.)
That's what I do, also. At some point, one of the domain names I'm in charge of accepted wildcard emails, although I'm not sure when. This was way back in the early days of companies getting on the internet, 1998 or so. And we got dictionary attacked, apparently.
As a result, there are hundreds of email addresses on spammer's lists that have never actually had a person behind them...and haven't accepted email for at least a decade. Also, there are addresses that, as far as I can tell, are off-by-one errors of addresses, with missing first, or even first and second, characters. Some of them, hilariously, are off-by-one errors of the dictionary addresses. Some of them are clearly people typing gibberish in somewhere, like a bbbbbbb@ one and a qqqq@ one.
So I have plenty of addresses that can't get any legit mail, at all. And aren't vaguely close to any sort of reasonable typo.
Well, we accept email for them.;)
I have written a program that actually goes along and pulls mail out the maildir all these accounts deliver too, and runs it through spamassassin learning, and then throws the IP in an ipset table so that spammers can't even connect to our mail server. I'm pretty unfascist about anti-spam rules in general, with weighted rules and very few absolutes, but with the 'never actual valid addresses', hey, they're clearly spammers, period.
My only regret is that the company won't let me use greylisting, because whiney people would rather have ten times as much spam if it means their messages get there instantly, or something. If I could let the spamtrap mail in instantly, but defer other mail, that would be perfect.
Yes, the email cannot be rejected on the basis of the domain name not matching.
But the RFC is silent on the cases of it not being a real domain.
You aren't required to accept everything there, just actual domains, which you have to accept regardless of them being the rDNS, or the DNS being the IP, of that machine. You can do forward and backwards lookups if you want, but can't reject based on them according to the RFC.
But if they aren't actual domains names, or bracket enclosed IP addresses, you can do whatever the hell you want with them. (Although you might want to consider accepting non-bracket enclosed IP too.)
Of course, anyone who wanted to block non-matching HELOs could just claim that they currently only authorized servers with matching DNS, rDNS, and HELO to access their server, and hence they are blocking based on an 'authentication or authorization-determining mechanism', to follow the exception listed in that section.
Or, to quote the RFC itself at 7.7: It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the site providing the server.
Which is really how your entire argument about what servers can and can't do falls apart. The SMTP standard defines a protocol. The RFC standards themselves say, quite clearly, that you can block anyone you don't want at all. Pretty much all requirements that say what mail you should accept also says 'Unless you want to block unauthorized people'. Well, if you block them, and reject them with a message saying they are not authorized, they are ipso facto unauthorized.
And then, just to make it clear, it comes out and says 'You can block anyone for any reason you want'
This is because, despite what you seem to think, the RFCs are written to define a protocol and what programs following the protocol do. Programs that follow the mail RFCs have to be able to accept mail from people with incorrect domain names in the HELO, or they do not follow the RFC. There is a bunch of talk about what programs must do to be within the RFC.
But people do not have to configure the programs to do that if they want to reject mail that is like that, as the RFC specifically says.
It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.
I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.
Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.
Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.
It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.
Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.
I've never donated to any charity with the knowledge that my name would become public.
I mean, for all I know, it does. I don't really bother to check. I just don't know or care.
The only non-profit I've donated to that I knew such knowledge would become public is the local theater I volunteer at, and I did that to become a member, which I know is public.
More the point, the expression is either 24x7, meaning 24 hours a day 7 days a week, or 24x365, meaning 24 hours a day 365 days a year. They both mean the same thing...you just can't combine them. (You could say 24x7x52, I guess. Which isn't strictly an entire year, but, then again, neither is 365.)
Men attempt to solve things mechanically. Which, when emotion get involved, and it's a social problem, translates to 'force', or at least threats thereof.
Women solve things socially, so know a lot more options when they're faced with a social problem and become emotional.
That's an interesting way to put that. I would instead say that men are mechanical problem solvers, and women are social problems solvers. That is, they solve problems that way, not that they solve those sort of problems. Although obviously that's what they're best at.
I think we're really saying the same thing. Women attempt to work with other people to come to a conclusion, whereas men just build something and it's done.
Which makes it sound like I'm saying that men are better at things, but, heck, all management is is working with people to come to a conclusion. If it wasn't for people coordinating people in society, we'd all be hiding in huts waving sharpened pieces of bone at anyone who comes near so they don't take our stuff!
Of course, if not for people building things, we wouldn't have the huts!
Yes, but medical also requires social interaction, aka, 'bedside manner'. Doctor is a 'balanced' job, and I'd wouldn't be startled to see it equalize anywhere from 40% to 60% female. (As I pointed out above somewhere, the fact it's not already balanced is probably due to lagging gender bias.)
You make an excellent point about consultants, though. As the industry continues to change, and people have to sell themselves more, it's entirely possible that more and more women will end up in it. (Although I have to point out that education for the field is unlikely to mention this, so it's possible that most people won't realize it until they enter the field, before which point all the women have left.)
And, incidentally, I don't think anyone is arguing that individual women can't be strong at the sort of mechanical problem solving programming requires. If they are, they're wrong.
This is all a statistical thing. Women tend to like social problem solving more than men, and men tend to like mechanical problem solving more than women. Tend being the key word.
I actually agree with you that men and women thing differently, but using the terms 'logical' vs. 'emotional' is just asking for problem.And isn't right. Women and men are just as 'logical' or 'emotional' as each other.
Men (tend to) solve problems mechanically. Women (tend to) solve problem socially.
The terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' don't really mean anything if not describing biological things.
And I'm not entirely sure what you're describing is because gay men like being nurses more. There are other possibilities.
To consider, let's look at something else: gay men are more likely to be wealthy than straight men. And the wealthy are more likely to be gay.
Now, there's all sorts of imaginary reasons for this, like being gay makes you rich, or being rich makes you gay. But the actual real reason is that the rich are more likely to be out, as they can deal with the fallout more. Presumably, there are just as many gay people at other economic levels, they're just closeted.
Likewise, with nurses, it's entirely likely that gay men, who are already flaunting traditional gender roles in one way, are more likely to flaunt them in job choice, too.
Or, maybe, in the other direction, that gay men who are in nursing are more likely to out themselves, as most of the disapproval of gay men comes from men, and they're surrounded by women. Likewise, if you're in the closet, nurse would seem a rather poor choice of job.
Incidentally, this post is from a discussion I had from a gay man I know who's a flight attendant, another job with disproportional women and disproportional gay men.
Now, I don't totally disagree with you. I think men and women think differently, and I think, in some ways, gay men think slightly more like women than straight men think like women. And the same with lesbians.
But I think a lot of the difference is trying to find a mate...gay men need to attract men, so need to look attractive. Lesbians need to attract women, so need to look stable, like 'good fathers' (Erm, you know what I mean.) I.e, they're not thinking like other gender because their brains differ...they're just trying to accomplish the same goals.
So I don't know whether or not gay men are in those fields because 1) are more attentive and compassionate because a) they are gay (Or, rather, that both have the same cause), or b) that is expected of 'mates of men' in some subconscious societal way, or because 2) people in that field are less in the closet or vis versa.
A programmer has the advantage that they can mostly remain anonymous, if they don't want their bodies and/or personalities put on public display.
Even non-anonymous they're better off.
In other jobs, jobs where you interact with the public, people have to dress nicely. With women, 'nicely' often requires 'sexy'. It is rather hard to find nice clothing that does not...um...show off various assets.
Which is some sort of weird inherit societal sexism...men have the ability to dress up without being attractive, whereas women really don't. Or, rather, the 'formal' bar is a lot lower...women have to switch to wearing dresses and showing off legs and arms a lot sooner than men would switch to custom tailored tuxedos and have professional hair stylists and makeup artists. We're going to visit our grandmother in a nice buttonup shirt and they're coming with us in a strapless dress, or possibly going to the Emmys, I'm not sure. But that's a topic for someone in woman's studies, if they can actually get off their asses and do something useful.
But programming is a field in which, let's face it, people often dress like slobs. Often programmers have dress codes that actually allows this.
A women, who would otherwise be somewhat attractive and get all sorts of unwanted attention paid to her body (instead of her job performance), can also join in and wear moderately baggy pants and baggy shirt, and no makeup, and, tada, she gets judged by what she does rather than what she looks like.
That doesn't mean what they actually teach in schools under the guise of computer science is, in fact, math.
It is programming, which is closer to design work. (Or very lackadaisical engineering, if you prefer. Engineering without any math, just drawing how things get screwed together and whatnot.)
I mean, I'm a liberal. Well, a progressive, but I'm in tune with liberal ideas and, hell, I think there's still a lot of systematic gender discrimination going on.
But, men and women really do think differently. They want to do different things with their life, they want to do different things day to day.
Some of that is, indeed, social conditioning. For example, there's really no reason we have so many female nurses and not nearly the same percentage of female doctors. The jobs aren't that dissimilar. (And you can't argue that it's the other way around, that men don't want to enter the medical field just to do nasty gruntwork, considering the percentage of men in garbage collection and road construction...men do not mind dirty jobs, and in fact hold most of them.)
Likewise, the fact there are less female political leaders is almost certainly due to prejudice against accepting female leadership, because, in actual fact, women tend to be more charismatic and social, exactly what you need to succeed in politics.
Women solve problems socially, men solve them mechanically. That is an absurd oversimplification, and it is purely statistical, but it is a real actual difference that controls what they enjoy doing, on average.
We were not talking about 'IT', we're talking about 'computer science' jobs.
Which do, indeed, require programming skills, or at least the ability to think in terms of programming.
And you don't normally become a manager unless you, in theory, have some experience in the field, so that's just silly to list. If they don't know programming, they hardly should be managers of a programming project. (Although that does, in fact, happen sometimes.) Nor they should be 'architecting' any programs.
And security analyst is probably an even more male-thinking job, right below under pure math.
And there are plenty of women in support positions.
Men and women's brain generally work different. They tend to solve problems differently.
Please note I in no way said they couldn't solve problems in some other way, it's just that they tend to different solutions.
Computer programming lends itself to the way men solve problems.
In fact, it's almost a parody of how men solve problems, and it's not a coincidence that computer programmers are more likely to be non-social loners....because people who are very very good at solving problems the way that programming are statistically more likely to be bad at solving problems in other ways. Same with the very high incidences of ADD.
And, again, I'm not saying women couldn't think this way, or that plenty of women don't. It's just a lot less women then men who think that way normally, and hence less women then men will end up in the field.
It's the same thing about teaching and caring professions, where women tend to end up a lot in. Men can certainly be compassionate and attentive, and plenty of them are that way to start with...but fewer than women.
And, incidentally, I have no opinion if this different way of thinking nature or nurture.
As society removes more and more institutional sexism, we've eventually going to realize that all jobs are not going to be 50% men and 50% women, because all jobs are not wanted equally.
Indeed. You want to look at the last place institutional discrimination is tolerated by society, go ask a man in a 'working with young children' profession.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like idea of the the X-Spam header showing up in clients, because spammers will just start adding that. Like, uh, they have.
If we're going to do that, we need to define an actual header that you're not allowed to send in mail messages, that the receiving mail server has to strip out. (And optionally add their own.)
Actually, what we might want to do is add a header that lists which other headers were added by the receiving mail server. Or just to mark a place above which new recipient headers are added.
Oh, and while you're at it, make sure your mail server isn't on the IP that the A record points to.
Spam software is designed by total morons, apparently, and there is indeed some percentage that just totally ignores MX records, sending to the domain's A record.
But spammers implementing retries would slow down their spam sending by quite a lot, as they'd actually have to keep track of it.
And it would not help at all in combination with spamtrap blacklisting, either local or remote. There are plenty of people, myself included, that run their own 'bad address' blacklist...you send to a certain invalid email address, you're blacklisted for a while. And there are the big, publicly accessibly lists that operate essentially the same way.
If you use that on top of greylisting (Which, sadly, I cannot because of the delay) by the time anyone gets around to getting back to you, that IP is blacklisted.
If you're worried about speed or something, just add the MX last record.
That causes absolutely no overhead 99.999% of the time. But plenty of spammers go straight to the last record. (On the theory that backup MX servers might not be running as much antispam check.)
Also, I'm not sure that listing a fake address is a good idea. Might want to list a real one, that you actually own, that doesn't have a mail server on it.
Yeah, I can't use greylisting for the same reason.
As we're essentially in one time zone, I've played with the idea of greylisting only at night. Haven't seen a program to do that, but it shouldn't be that hard. (I guess I could always rewrite a postfix lookup table every time it changed.)
That's what I do, also. At some point, one of the domain names I'm in charge of accepted wildcard emails, although I'm not sure when. This was way back in the early days of companies getting on the internet, 1998 or so. And we got dictionary attacked, apparently.
As a result, there are hundreds of email addresses on spammer's lists that have never actually had a person behind them...and haven't accepted email for at least a decade. Also, there are addresses that, as far as I can tell, are off-by-one errors of addresses, with missing first, or even first and second, characters. Some of them, hilariously, are off-by-one errors of the dictionary addresses. Some of them are clearly people typing gibberish in somewhere, like a bbbbbbb@ one and a qqqq@ one.
So I have plenty of addresses that can't get any legit mail, at all. And aren't vaguely close to any sort of reasonable typo.
Well, we accept email for them. ;)
I have written a program that actually goes along and pulls mail out the maildir all these accounts deliver too, and runs it through spamassassin learning, and then throws the IP in an ipset table so that spammers can't even connect to our mail server. I'm pretty unfascist about anti-spam rules in general, with weighted rules and very few absolutes, but with the 'never actual valid addresses', hey, they're clearly spammers, period.
My only regret is that the company won't let me use greylisting, because whiney people would rather have ten times as much spam if it means their messages get there instantly, or something. If I could let the spamtrap mail in instantly, but defer other mail, that would be perfect.
Yes, the email cannot be rejected on the basis of the domain name not matching.
But the RFC is silent on the cases of it not being a real domain.
You aren't required to accept everything there, just actual domains, which you have to accept regardless of them being the rDNS, or the DNS being the IP, of that machine. You can do forward and backwards lookups if you want, but can't reject based on them according to the RFC.
But if they aren't actual domains names, or bracket enclosed IP addresses, you can do whatever the hell you want with them. (Although you might want to consider accepting non-bracket enclosed IP too.)
Of course, anyone who wanted to block non-matching HELOs could just claim that they currently only authorized servers with matching DNS, rDNS, and HELO to access their server, and hence they are blocking based on an 'authentication or authorization-determining mechanism', to follow the exception listed in that section.
Or, to quote the RFC itself at 7.7: It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the site providing the server.
Which is really how your entire argument about what servers can and can't do falls apart. The SMTP standard defines a protocol. The RFC standards themselves say, quite clearly, that you can block anyone you don't want at all. Pretty much all requirements that say what mail you should accept also says 'Unless you want to block unauthorized people'. Well, if you block them, and reject them with a message saying they are not authorized, they are ipso facto unauthorized.
And then, just to make it clear, it comes out and says 'You can block anyone for any reason you want'
This is because, despite what you seem to think, the RFCs are written to define a protocol and what programs following the protocol do. Programs that follow the mail RFCs have to be able to accept mail from people with incorrect domain names in the HELO, or they do not follow the RFC. There is a bunch of talk about what programs must do to be within the RFC.
But people do not have to configure the programs to do that if they want to reject mail that is like that, as the RFC specifically says.
It actually makes much more sense to complain and try to fix things where society is proactively hurting people than when society is just ignoring people or where some natural problem is.
I mean, an organization trying to figure out why someone is homeless is hard. Getting them off street is hard, as is making sure someone just doesn't show up to take their place.
Likewise, curing a disease is hard. We can spend millions on research that doesn't go anywhere.
Compares to those, not locking people up for drug us and not spending money to do so is incredibly efficient. We don't actually have to solve some biological or social problem. We just have to stop doing something.
It's like, if your house is falling apart, due to termites, random vandals, water damage...and a guy you're paying to run around punching holes in the wall with a sledgehammer.
Which problem are you going to address first to fix your house? I dunno about you, but I'd get the sledgehammer guy to stop, even if the other problems are 'worse' in some objective sense of how damaged your house is.
I've never donated to any charity with the knowledge that my name would become public.
I mean, for all I know, it does. I don't really bother to check. I just don't know or care.
The only non-profit I've donated to that I knew such knowledge would become public is the local theater I volunteer at, and I did that to become a member, which I know is public.
Let's just say 1:1 availability. For all the time that exists, someone is available.
More the point, the expression is either 24x7, meaning 24 hours a day 7 days a week, or 24x365, meaning 24 hours a day 365 days a year. They both mean the same thing...you just can't combine them. (You could say 24x7x52, I guess. Which isn't strictly an entire year, but, then again, neither is 365.)
I'm waiting for the bully=plays video games connection.
Worst. Example. EVER.
Where are the lengthy articles on what's wrong with military culture that's to blame for this?
Here, you loon.
Men attempt to solve things mechanically. Which, when emotion get involved, and it's a social problem, translates to 'force', or at least threats thereof.
Women solve things socially, so know a lot more options when they're faced with a social problem and become emotional.
That's an interesting way to put that. I would instead say that men are mechanical problem solvers, and women are social problems solvers. That is, they solve problems that way, not that they solve those sort of problems. Although obviously that's what they're best at.
I think we're really saying the same thing. Women attempt to work with other people to come to a conclusion, whereas men just build something and it's done.
Which makes it sound like I'm saying that men are better at things, but, heck, all management is is working with people to come to a conclusion. If it wasn't for people coordinating people in society, we'd all be hiding in huts waving sharpened pieces of bone at anyone who comes near so they don't take our stuff!
Of course, if not for people building things, we wouldn't have the huts!
Yes, but medical also requires social interaction, aka, 'bedside manner'. Doctor is a 'balanced' job, and I'd wouldn't be startled to see it equalize anywhere from 40% to 60% female. (As I pointed out above somewhere, the fact it's not already balanced is probably due to lagging gender bias.)
You make an excellent point about consultants, though. As the industry continues to change, and people have to sell themselves more, it's entirely possible that more and more women will end up in it. (Although I have to point out that education for the field is unlikely to mention this, so it's possible that most people won't realize it until they enter the field, before which point all the women have left.)
And, incidentally, I don't think anyone is arguing that individual women can't be strong at the sort of mechanical problem solving programming requires. If they are, they're wrong.
This is all a statistical thing. Women tend to like social problem solving more than men, and men tend to like mechanical problem solving more than women. Tend being the key word.
Oh, good grief, people are actually arguing using those idiotic term.
Men are mechanical problem solvers. Women are social problems solvers. That's how they solve problems.
They both do it logically. You can't actually solve problems by being 'emotional'.
Acting like social problems, or that attempting to solve social problems without using force, are 'emotional' is just stupid.
Oh, man.
I actually agree with you that men and women thing differently, but using the terms 'logical' vs. 'emotional' is just asking for problem.And isn't right. Women and men are just as 'logical' or 'emotional' as each other.
Men (tend to) solve problems mechanically. Women (tend to) solve problem socially.
Both of them presumably use logic to do so.
The terms 'masculine' and 'feminine' don't really mean anything if not describing biological things.
And I'm not entirely sure what you're describing is because gay men like being nurses more. There are other possibilities.
To consider, let's look at something else: gay men are more likely to be wealthy than straight men. And the wealthy are more likely to be gay.
Now, there's all sorts of imaginary reasons for this, like being gay makes you rich, or being rich makes you gay. But the actual real reason is that the rich are more likely to be out, as they can deal with the fallout more. Presumably, there are just as many gay people at other economic levels, they're just closeted.
Likewise, with nurses, it's entirely likely that gay men, who are already flaunting traditional gender roles in one way, are more likely to flaunt them in job choice, too.
Or, maybe, in the other direction, that gay men who are in nursing are more likely to out themselves, as most of the disapproval of gay men comes from men, and they're surrounded by women. Likewise, if you're in the closet, nurse would seem a rather poor choice of job.
Incidentally, this post is from a discussion I had from a gay man I know who's a flight attendant, another job with disproportional women and disproportional gay men.
Now, I don't totally disagree with you. I think men and women think differently, and I think, in some ways, gay men think slightly more like women than straight men think like women. And the same with lesbians.
But I think a lot of the difference is trying to find a mate...gay men need to attract men, so need to look attractive. Lesbians need to attract women, so need to look stable, like 'good fathers' (Erm, you know what I mean.) I.e, they're not thinking like other gender because their brains differ...they're just trying to accomplish the same goals.
So I don't know whether or not gay men are in those fields because 1) are more attentive and compassionate because a) they are gay (Or, rather, that both have the same cause), or b) that is expected of 'mates of men' in some subconscious societal way, or because 2) people in that field are less in the closet or vis versa.
A programmer has the advantage that they can mostly remain anonymous, if they don't want their bodies and/or personalities put on public display.
Even non-anonymous they're better off.
In other jobs, jobs where you interact with the public, people have to dress nicely. With women, 'nicely' often requires 'sexy'. It is rather hard to find nice clothing that does not...um...show off various assets.
Which is some sort of weird inherit societal sexism...men have the ability to dress up without being attractive, whereas women really don't. Or, rather, the 'formal' bar is a lot lower...women have to switch to wearing dresses and showing off legs and arms a lot sooner than men would switch to custom tailored tuxedos and have professional hair stylists and makeup artists. We're going to visit our grandmother in a nice buttonup shirt and they're coming with us in a strapless dress, or possibly going to the Emmys, I'm not sure. But that's a topic for someone in woman's studies, if they can actually get off their asses and do something useful.
But programming is a field in which, let's face it, people often dress like slobs. Often programmers have dress codes that actually allows this.
A women, who would otherwise be somewhat attractive and get all sorts of unwanted attention paid to her body (instead of her job performance), can also join in and wear moderately baggy pants and baggy shirt, and no makeup, and, tada, she gets judged by what she does rather than what she looks like.
Computer science is math.
That doesn't mean what they actually teach in schools under the guise of computer science is, in fact, math.
It is programming, which is closer to design work. (Or very lackadaisical engineering, if you prefer. Engineering without any math, just drawing how things get screwed together and whatnot.)
It really is sorta silly.
I mean, I'm a liberal. Well, a progressive, but I'm in tune with liberal ideas and, hell, I think there's still a lot of systematic gender discrimination going on.
But, men and women really do think differently. They want to do different things with their life, they want to do different things day to day.
Some of that is, indeed, social conditioning. For example, there's really no reason we have so many female nurses and not nearly the same percentage of female doctors. The jobs aren't that dissimilar. (And you can't argue that it's the other way around, that men don't want to enter the medical field just to do nasty gruntwork, considering the percentage of men in garbage collection and road construction...men do not mind dirty jobs, and in fact hold most of them.)
Likewise, the fact there are less female political leaders is almost certainly due to prejudice against accepting female leadership, because, in actual fact, women tend to be more charismatic and social, exactly what you need to succeed in politics.
Women solve problems socially, men solve them mechanically. That is an absurd oversimplification, and it is purely statistical, but it is a real actual difference that controls what they enjoy doing, on average.
We were not talking about 'IT', we're talking about 'computer science' jobs.
Which do, indeed, require programming skills, or at least the ability to think in terms of programming.
And you don't normally become a manager unless you, in theory, have some experience in the field, so that's just silly to list. If they don't know programming, they hardly should be managers of a programming project. (Although that does, in fact, happen sometimes.) Nor they should be 'architecting' any programs.
And security analyst is probably an even more male-thinking job, right below under pure math.
And there are plenty of women in support positions.
Men and women's brain generally work different. They tend to solve problems differently.
Please note I in no way said they couldn't solve problems in some other way, it's just that they tend to different solutions.
Computer programming lends itself to the way men solve problems.
In fact, it's almost a parody of how men solve problems, and it's not a coincidence that computer programmers are more likely to be non-social loners....because people who are very very good at solving problems the way that programming are statistically more likely to be bad at solving problems in other ways. Same with the very high incidences of ADD.
And, again, I'm not saying women couldn't think this way, or that plenty of women don't. It's just a lot less women then men who think that way normally, and hence less women then men will end up in the field.
It's the same thing about teaching and caring professions, where women tend to end up a lot in. Men can certainly be compassionate and attentive, and plenty of them are that way to start with...but fewer than women.
And, incidentally, I have no opinion if this different way of thinking nature or nurture.
As society removes more and more institutional sexism, we've eventually going to realize that all jobs are not going to be 50% men and 50% women, because all jobs are not wanted equally.
Indeed. You want to look at the last place institutional discrimination is tolerated by society, go ask a man in a 'working with young children' profession.