Not according to people who responded to my previous comment in response to the question, who watches sports?
To them, there is no need to be exposed to the outside world. Anything not tech related is worthless is their mantra.
Not everything that is not tech-related is worthless... only sports;->
That's nice. Would you care to share what reasons you believe the reasons are?
Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things.
Well, I'm sure it matters to whoever was discriminated against.
Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
What's with you attacking the authors?
Where did I attack the authors? Most scientists doing an empirical test understand that the results are pointless without a frame of reference
(I was a research scientist in academia for seven years). When reviewing, we do make statements like "The authors have omitted a small but critical portion of preparation of the study".
They set out to see if discrimination exists, something I believe they did pretty well.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation.
The paper doesn't attempt to address other questions because it's a single paper on a single topic, not an entire thesis.
There is no other topic - the one that the researchers chose to look at was "discrimination in X", they did not have to measure discrimination in Y and Z, all they had to do was show us the comparison. They omitted to do so. Search for the measured discrimination for other human attributes and you'll discover why they omitted the fitment test.
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction.
Adding more in the opposite direction can serve to cancel out some of what exists.
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference. There are tons of research that shows discrimination, self-identification, self-grouping, tribalism, etc are driven by very complex processes, not just in humans and not just by environment.
The problem you are facing (which is why I made a reference earlier to cognitive dissonance) is that you (say) that would like there to be no discrimination against women without recognising that the only way to get rid of innate discrimination against women would be to get rid of innate discrimination. But you stated that you don't want this - you want humans to retain a certain characteristic (the intrinsic ability to discriminate) but you also don't want them to exhibit this characteristic (ability to discriminate). Those are conflicting goals, even if you have to resolve the dissonance in your head by stating that it must be possible to have one without the other.
Maybe you are right - maybe it will be possible to take away characteristic X from humans while still leaving characteristic X. I've not seen any evidence that this is possible, so I don't think so. I've also not seen any pink unicorns either. And also, religious folk get annoyed by me too:-)
The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT.
For the second time, no it isn't.
This is from the top of this thread (emphasis mine):
[...]What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT[...]
[...]making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?[...]
I read that statement of yours coupled with the grandparent, hence I reached the conclusion that you think that female under-representation in IT is due to discrimination. I know know you feel differently (see below) to what you actually said.
The only person who has brought this up in this chain of comments is you. You seem desperate to have this argument.
But OK, let's say I'll bite on an offtopic diversion:
Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT?
I believe it's partly responsible, but not the sole factor.
If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
There are almost certainly a multitude of reasons. There's discrimination, and there's also strong socalisation against IT related fields. They are also fighting an uphill battle due to being underrepresented, much like there is terrible bias against men trying to go into primary education.
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
But none of those reasons have any evidence, hence I consider it fine to dismiss them until evidence surfaces. You wouldn't think worse of me if I refused to believe in invisible pink unicorns unless some evidence was provided, so why ask me to believe that "socialisation", etc are reasons as well?
Either way, there's still gender based descrimination.
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
Why would I be experiencing cognitive dissonance? All you've done is bring up off topic rants.
I apologise - I took your statements that discrimination is the cause of the lack of women in IT as just that - I no know that you don't believe that.
Nonethelsee, I look forward to the answers you promised.
As promised:
Yes all forms of discrimination exists. Gender-based is simply one of them. Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things. Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
I don't believe that any demographic in particular will be harmed If discrimination is reduced. However, you did not propose to reduce discrimination - you said:
But if as the study shows, women are being passed over simply because they're female then doesn't bias in grants simply serve to even up the odds so that there is no average disadvantage or advantage to being a particular gender?
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction. And I believe, reasonably I think, that the proposed reverse discrimination will be more harmful to women than to men.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
Why did you ask for it? It's not relevant to the original argument. That was about whether discrimination exists at all, not whether it is, has been or will be worse elsewhere.
For the second time, I never made the argument that discrimination will be worse, or matters at all, elsewhere. I've already told you this. You've already read this. The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT. The question you are avoiding answering is why does this discrimination not deter women in other fields? If women in other fields face discrimination (like your linked paper shows) but are still highly represented, then why is it a problem in IT?
That's why research studies are all done with a fitment test or a NULL hypothesis - you believe that X causes Y in area Z? Why does X not cause Y in area Z'?
How about this - I'll answer your questions at the bottom of this post if you can answer just a single two-part question here: Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT? If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
Go on, I'll wait.
So, I ask again:
Do you agree the study shows discrimination exists?
If descrimination is reduced, do you believe this will harm womens prospects?
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
So? Discrimination is bad. Just because it existed elsewhere and people have been able to overcome it doesn't mean that it's somehow OK.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
A lot more women go into biology than men (the aprity you speak of does not exist at the top professorial levels by the way).
That's the point exactly - the discrimination you are railing against seems to have no effect on the number of women who go into Biology, but yet you ascribe the lack of women in IT to the same discrimination? You have to ask yourself why is it that this discrimination puts women off IT but not off other fields.
You say "Discrimination is why women are not in IT
Your linked paper shows that discrimination doesn't put off women Biology
So there is some evidence, conveniently provided by yourself, that shows that women don't particularly find discrimination off-putting enough to leave the field in the numbers that they are leaving IT. You've made that point yourself.
You, and the other people reacting with faith-based reasoning, are blind to the harm you are doing to women's rights. Leave out the faith-based reasoning for once.
You realise that Mandela was a heavily involved member of the ANC, which was a very large terrorist organisation right up until they took power in the 1990s? They had huge backing from international parties opposed to apartheid, and carried out a large number of bombings and rocket attacks between 1970 and 1990.
And yet they are today seen as clean as fresh snow...
And their corporate backing came from where exactly?
I'm quite familiar with that repeatedly-posted link. Let me quote from my previous post which you have appeared to only lightly skimmed:
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
In the sciences, unlike the religions, it is customary to present data with a fitment test; a frame of reference, if you will. That paper does not present any evidence that the so-called burden for women in IT today is any more or any less than the other fields in which women have persevered and dominated. As of writing, there is no evidence (well, not any science evidence) that women in IT face more discrimination than past women in Medicine, Law, Accounting and the Vetinary Sciences. FCOL, the paper you link to does not even examine IT subjects, only Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
Even worse (for your argument), the study appears to be of discrimination against women in a field that they are currently close to parity in - Biology is the one I'm looking at.
So perhaps you want to explain how, if discrimination is the reason for a lack of women in IT, that Biology with actual studied and reported gender discrimination as per your very own reference, manages to have so many women compared to IT? If women are discriminated against in Biology, then why aren't their numbers the same as IT? Your very own reference points to the fact that discrimination cannot be the sole, or even largely part of, the reason for a lack of women in IT.
So what you are saying is that the demonstrable discrimination against women should continue because it makes them more equal?
Firstly, no, I did not. What I said was that the current/proposed practice would change the landscape far more than you can imagine (Law of unintended consequences, and such). The proposed changes which force men to either choose a different field or take a risk for more money in the same field is going to end up with the average male income in the field rising (some of those risks will pay off, the ones that don't won't be counted).
I also pointed out that by giving women an easier ride than the men get is going to result in getting only those women who are looking for an easy ride. We already have enough female game "developers" who don't know how to program but get a ton of attention and money via patreon nevertheless just for being female! We don't need any more of those types of people, regardless of gender.
Do I understand you correctly?
If not, what do YOU suggest to end the discrimination?
Secondly, there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science). Evidence of skewness is not evidence of discrimination. Faith-based reasoning has no place in a discussion such as this, and looking back over the posts that you and the rest of the people supporting your position, the only argument that gets made is the "god-of-the-gaps" argument, in that "There used to be more women in tech than now. It must be discrimination". Faith-based reasoning, in other words.
Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right?
Maybe not, but everyone has already decided that it's a pretty good start to the definitions of reality and morality. The people who broke laws in the past because those laws were "unjust" (for whatever meaning of unjust you want to use) didn't do it purely to make money first, and perhaps make a statement later.
They made a statement; money, if any, came later.
Ghandi didn't have his hunger strikes sponsored. Mandela didn't have corporate backing. They broke laws too.
Uber is no different than a common patent troll, with the only difference being that the patent troll at least has the laws on their side.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,
Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?
The problem is that this sort of "correction" tends to push even more men into working for themselves, thus widening the income gap even more. If you're unable to get hired due to diversity practices the normal thing is to go into business for yourself, i.e. contract. At that point, as a contractor (LLC) the "employer" (now the purchaser) gains no value from discrimination, and will therefore buy for the best value they can get.
How do I know that it won't be a woman? As another poster pointed out below, a man and woman of equal competence and qualifications aren't really equal - the women in the group will tend to prioritise their family while the man won't, hence the man will offer slightly better value (more working hours, etc).
What people like you, I Kan Reed, AniMoJo, Dave420 and others cannot understand is that this cause you are supporting hurts women much more than men. Hell, I'm gainfully employed and I'm STILL doing business on the weekends. More men then ever are willing to jump into a startup while still employed elsewhere, thereby sacrificing ALL oif their time - I haven't met a single woman who is willing to sacrifice their family life, nevermind sacrificing all of their time.
So this "let's push men out of IT" issue simply means that the most motivated male IT workers will make even more, while only the lesser motivated females (the ones who need a scholarship and a round of applause before they'd even apply) are the ones in IT, thus furthering the perception that women shouldn't be in IT. You guys are destroying the cause of women everywhere, and all so that you can feel good about yourself. You should be working on convincing the most highly motivated women to enter; those women aren't looking for handouts in the form of affirmative action. Instead with this noise over making things easier, you're only attracting the dumbest and least motivated, like game "developers" who don't know how to program and have no intention of learning, or former scammers who referred to women as sluts when she was working the con as a pickup artist motivational speaker.
Because those are the people who are chasing away the bright women, not the men.
To all the people who say "women don't want to work in tech", note that women were the MAJORITY in the early days of computing, right up until the advent of personal computers.
Ahhh... the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument - the old "if you can't explain the numbers then it must be sexism" chestnut. Do you realise that advocating that argument is the same as saying "well, you can't prove god DIDN'T do it".
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (or something like that:-) I also can't prove that the numbers would be different if there were invisible pink unicorns, so I guess that it's invisible pink unicorns fault?
Depends on where you live. Here in Seattle, every home I've been in that was built in the past twenty-five years has electric heat. If you turn the thermostat up too high, you will be likely to start a fire. My last house caught fire when the thermostat shorted out. I thought the house was too hot when I was leaving to meet a friend, but I was in a hurry so I didn't check on it. When I got home, my house was full of smoke and there were wisps of flames from the wooden frame around my window just above the electric heat. Another few minutes and it would have spread. Also, several fires a year here are started by children turning the thermostats up all of the way. Because there's no forced air in the vast majority of homes in this area, the heater can get hot enough to light paper and wood on fire while the thermostat still reads below 90.
I've got some bad news - the internet connected thingy... say... the next, for example... can still set your house on fire if it shorts out. Being IoT buzzword-ready does not imply that it is safer than the mechanical one.
Same goes for clocks, watches, and other such stuff as many of the gears and such are replaced with circuit boards.
Yup. Our vacuum cleaner went on the fritz. I thought, vacuum cleaners are very simple - I can handle this. Cracked it open and... big fancy circuit board! This model had a "bag full" sensor and two speeds, so I guess they put it on a board. At this point I Googled and found that the problem is common and that the board is essentially toast. Fortunately the same Google search showed that Hoover still does a 7 year warranty so I slapped it back together and got it fixed.
But yeah, a simple vacuum is now complicated. Next time I'll buy something with only an off-on switch.
Why not throw the board away and connect a high-voltage switch to power? I did this to a broken vacuum cleaner once - simply threw away the board and wired a switch to directly switch the motor. Put in two switches in and you could have two power levels.
Of course, you don't get all the value-add that the electronics mainboard gave you, like "bag-full" indicator, etc. But really, just empty the thing each time you're done vacuuming, which is probably what you're doing anyway.
less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet
But you have to wait several months and avoid spoilers in the meantime. For example, the film Hop took nearly a year after North American theatrical release to be published on DVD and BD in North America. And most people's audio systems are likely not up to par with that of a theater.
Most people turn on subtitles when playing a disk. That beats any "par" set by the theatre.
Racism masked as intelligent analysis. Colonialism/Apartheid and the viewing blacks as savages who are mentally inferior to whites is a big part of the reason they remain an underclass in South Africa.
That's what the stupid masses always say. You did know that I am not white, right? And FYI, the ruling class in SA is overwhelmingly black.
Finally, why are you still in SA? It sounds like a wretched mess. Turn off the lights on your way out....
Because, sadly, I'm divorced with a child who lives with my ex-wife. Any country I "flee" to with my son would happily hand myself and my son back to SA officials when his mum starts the legal process. If I were to leave, I would have to leave my son behind. I cannot do that. The only way to leave would be either:
a) His mum also agrees to leave, and to agree to sign a new contact agreement in the destination country. This is not going to happen as she is a lawyer and, as such, she is useless outside SA. She has no qualification that are applicable anywhere in the world other than in SA (laws differ from country to country and lawyers who are qualified to practice in on country have to redo their degree in another to practice in it).
b) The country itself falls apart to such an extent that I can reasonably claim refugee status in the destination country. They would not then send my son back (and I would not be arrested).
Considering that we run our power off a petrol generator sometimes, I expect anarchy before too long. The blackouts scheduled for Feb/March means that at any given time only one half of the country will have power. Civilisation doesn't last too long without food, and modern food depends on electricity. At the point that any country willingly offers refugee status to SA citizens, that is the point I will leave with my son. Until then I'll endure. My son is only 7, after all.
And what will all our fine corporate interests do when they run out of wage slaves?
I think you worry too much - I'm in the best part of Africa, the most progressive, the most modern, and even here the government can't even keep the lights on. Over here we just came out of a economy crippling 8-month strike (which was preceded by a 6 month strike). In December, due to cable-theft which the government does nothing about, our company ran on diesel generators for two full weeks (averaging 18l/hour).
Our workforce is mostly uneducated and they prefer it that way (seriously, they do). Our pass rate for high-school maths is around 10%. Our high school students rank close to last in maths and science. Our minister of education is on a mission to put religion into schools, as if that would alleviate the systemic problems in our educational system. Our populations is incredibly lazy and refuses to work. Their reasoning is mostly vindicated, as they keep voting for a government that takes from the imddle class and gives to their voter base.
We have roughly 5 million income tax payers supporting around 12 million welfare recipients. The aforementioned 5 million also pay for electricity while the 12 million get it for free. This ratio is only getting worse as time goes on. We have the least amount of corruption compared to any other African state, but we still have annual news about shady arms deals that line politicians pockets at the expense of the people, a president who, in his late 60's, is taking a sixth wife (that taxpayers have to support).
Our president has been found guilty by the public prosecutor of taking almost R300million from the public coffer for his private benefit, was the recipient of bribes in which the dodgy court found the other party guilty of giving the bribe to the president but refused to find the president guilty of accepting it, has been tried for rape (acquitted, though: he claimed it was consensual), believes that having a shower after sex will prevent him from getting HIV and is unable to read numbers with more than 5 digits (seriously, check youtube).
Multiple areas have to rely on cellphones, due to cable-theft affecting POTS lines (I'm in such an area), water routinely gets cut off due to not enough power to run pumping stations. The middle class (mentioned above) all pay for private security to guard their homes because the woefully underfunded and under-manned police force simply cannot keep up with the crime rate.
Yeah, I did mention that we are the best that Africa has to offer, right? Good luck to any company trying to set up manufacturing or processing facilities here - the population is so lazy, that even though we have a 25% unemployment rate (in practice it is higher, this low number is due to the way they count "unemployed") the only people who are willing to work as gardeners are from a neighbouring country.
The cherry on top? Your business could easily be nationalised if the president decides that the kickback is not high enough. Seriously, good luck with moving stuff from China to here. China has a well-earned reputation for being a nation of hard and industrious workers. They may steal ideas, but they still work more hours than everyone else. Your manufacturing facility is safe there. Our workers refuse to accept an double-inflation raise and strike for 8 months out of 12. Your manufacturing facility won't survive here - the automakers are now planning on moving out (they were the first to come here for the cheap labour).
For forever tainting their slashdot ID's by repeated endorsing and defending the exposed Liar, Anti-Women Sexist, Pick Up Artist-who-calls-women-sluts, $160k-richer-after-all-this.... the one, the only.... Anita S.
Slashdot Mirror
Not according to people who responded to my previous comment in response to the question, who watches sports? To them, there is no need to be exposed to the outside world. Anything not tech related is worthless is their mantra.
Not everything that is not tech-related is worthless... only sports ;->
whoosh
That's one fast vest!
It must be a hybrid
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
That's nice. Would you care to share what reasons you believe the reasons are?
Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things.
Well, I'm sure it matters to whoever was discriminated against.
Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
What's with you attacking the authors?
Where did I attack the authors? Most scientists doing an empirical test understand that the results are pointless without a frame of reference (I was a research scientist in academia for seven years). When reviewing, we do make statements like "The authors have omitted a small but critical portion of preparation of the study".
They set out to see if discrimination exists, something I believe they did pretty well.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation.
The paper doesn't attempt to address other questions because it's a single paper on a single topic, not an entire thesis.
There is no other topic - the one that the researchers chose to look at was "discrimination in X", they did not have to measure discrimination in Y and Z, all they had to do was show us the comparison. They omitted to do so. Search for the measured discrimination for other human attributes and you'll discover why they omitted the fitment test.
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction.
Adding more in the opposite direction can serve to cancel out some of what exists.
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference. There are tons of research that shows discrimination, self-identification, self-grouping, tribalism, etc are driven by very complex processes, not just in humans and not just by environment.
The problem you are facing (which is why I made a reference earlier to cognitive dissonance) is that you (say) that would like there to be no discrimination against women without recognising that the only way to get rid of innate discrimination against women would be to get rid of innate discrimination. But you stated that you don't want this - you want humans to retain a certain characteristic (the intrinsic ability to discriminate) but you also don't want them to exhibit this characteristic (ability to discriminate). Those are conflicting goals, even if you have to resolve the dissonance in your head by stating that it must be possible to have one without the other.
Maybe you are right - maybe it will be possible to take away characteristic X from humans while still leaving characteristic X. I've not seen any evidence that this is possible, so I don't think so. I've also not seen any pink unicorns either. And also, religious folk get annoyed by me too :-)
The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT.
For the second time, no it isn't.
This is from the top of this thread (emphasis mine):
[...]What is it about wanting to introduce more people into IT[...]
[...]making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?[...]
I read that statement of yours coupled with the grandparent, hence I reached the conclusion that you think that female under-representation in IT is due to discrimination. I know know you feel differently (see below) to what you actually said.
The only person who has brought this up in this chain of comments is you. You seem desperate to have this argument.
But OK, let's say I'll bite on an offtopic diversion:
Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT?
I believe it's partly responsible, but not the sole factor.
If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
There are almost certainly a multitude of reasons. There's discrimination, and there's also strong socalisation against IT related fields. They are also fighting an uphill battle due to being underrepresented, much like there is terrible bias against men trying to go into primary education.
I doubt those are all the reasons however.
But none of those reasons have any evidence, hence I consider it fine to dismiss them until evidence surfaces. You wouldn't think worse of me if I refused to believe in invisible pink unicorns unless some evidence was provided, so why ask me to believe that "socialisation", etc are reasons as well?
Either way, there's still gender based descrimination.
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
Why would I be experiencing cognitive dissonance? All you've done is bring up off topic rants.
I apologise - I took your statements that discrimination is the cause of the lack of women in IT as just that - I no know that you don't believe that.
Nonethelsee, I look forward to the answers you promised.
As promised:
Yes all forms of discrimination exists. Gender-based is simply one of them. Due to lack of fitment tests or any frame of reference provided by the study you cite it is impossible to tell if the specific discrimination you are against matters at all in the grand scheme of things. Of all the discrimination that exists, it might be the least significant or the most, but we can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
I don't believe that any demographic in particular will be harmed If discrimination is reduced. However, you did not propose to reduce discrimination - you said:
But if as the study shows, women are being passed over simply because they're female then doesn't bias in grants simply serve to even up the odds so that there is no average disadvantage or advantage to being a particular gender?
That isn't reducing discrimination, that's adding more, just in the opposite direction. And I believe, reasonably I think, that the proposed reverse discrimination will be more harmful to women than to men.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
Why did you ask for it? It's not relevant to the original argument. That was about whether discrimination exists at all, not whether it is, has been or will be worse elsewhere.
For the second time, I never made the argument that discrimination will be worse, or matters at all, elsewhere. I've already told you this. You've already read this. The argument that is getting put out around here is that discrimination is responsible for the low numbers of women in IT. The question you are avoiding answering is why does this discrimination not deter women in other fields? If women in other fields face discrimination (like your linked paper shows) but are still highly represented, then why is it a problem in IT?
That's why research studies are all done with a fitment test or a NULL hypothesis - you believe that X causes Y in area Z? Why does X not cause Y in area Z'?
How about this - I'll answer your questions at the bottom of this post if you can answer just a single two-part question here: Do you believe that discrimination causes low numbers of women in IT? If so, why do you believe that discrimination is the cause of low numbers of women in IT when discrimination hasn't caused low numbers of women in multiple other fields?
Go on, I'll wait.
So, I ask again:
Do you agree the study shows discrimination exists?
If descrimination is reduced, do you believe this will harm womens prospects?
To be answered when you answer the relatively simply question above (yeah, you're probably experiencing a little cognitive dissonance right now).
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
So? Discrimination is bad. Just because it existed elsewhere and people have been able to overcome it doesn't mean that it's somehow OK.
I never made that argument - I asked for a fitment test. Luckily, now I don't need to make that argument.
A lot more women go into biology than men (the aprity you speak of does not exist at the top professorial levels by the way).
That's the point exactly - the discrimination you are railing against seems to have no effect on the number of women who go into Biology, but yet you ascribe the lack of women in IT to the same discrimination? You have to ask yourself why is it that this discrimination puts women off IT but not off other fields.
You say "Discrimination is why women are not in IT
Your linked paper shows that discrimination doesn't put off women Biology
So there is some evidence, conveniently provided by yourself, that shows that women don't particularly find discrimination off-putting enough to leave the field in the numbers that they are leaving IT. You've made that point yourself.
You, and the other people reacting with faith-based reasoning, are blind to the harm you are doing to women's rights. Leave out the faith-based reasoning for once.
Mandela didn't have corporate backing.
You realise that Mandela was a heavily involved member of the ANC, which was a very large terrorist organisation right up until they took power in the 1990s? They had huge backing from international parties opposed to apartheid, and carried out a large number of bombings and rocket attacks between 1970 and 1990.
And yet they are today seen as clean as fresh snow...
And their corporate backing came from where exactly?
http://www.pnas.org/content/10...
I'm quite familiar with that repeatedly-posted link. Let me quote from my previous post which you have appeared to only lightly skimmed:
there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science).
In the sciences, unlike the religions, it is customary to present data with a fitment test; a frame of reference, if you will. That paper does not present any evidence that the so-called burden for women in IT today is any more or any less than the other fields in which women have persevered and dominated. As of writing, there is no evidence (well, not any science evidence) that women in IT face more discrimination than past women in Medicine, Law, Accounting and the Vetinary Sciences. FCOL, the paper you link to does not even examine IT subjects, only Biology, Chemistry and Physics.
Even worse (for your argument), the study appears to be of discrimination against women in a field that they are currently close to parity in - Biology is the one I'm looking at.
So perhaps you want to explain how, if discrimination is the reason for a lack of women in IT, that Biology with actual studied and reported gender discrimination as per your very own reference, manages to have so many women compared to IT? If women are discriminated against in Biology, then why aren't their numbers the same as IT? Your very own reference points to the fact that discrimination cannot be the sole, or even largely part of, the reason for a lack of women in IT.
recently I saw a microsoft ad that featured a device that always has the most recent OS.
Plays^H^H^H^H^H Updates for Sure? I can hardly wait.
So what you are saying is that the demonstrable discrimination against women should continue because it makes them more equal?
Firstly, no, I did not. What I said was that the current/proposed practice would change the landscape far more than you can imagine (Law of unintended consequences, and such). The proposed changes which force men to either choose a different field or take a risk for more money in the same field is going to end up with the average male income in the field rising (some of those risks will pay off, the ones that don't won't be counted).
I also pointed out that by giving women an easier ride than the men get is going to result in getting only those women who are looking for an easy ride. We already have enough female game "developers" who don't know how to program but get a ton of attention and money via patreon nevertheless just for being female! We don't need any more of those types of people, regardless of gender.
Do I understand you correctly?
If not, what do YOU suggest to end the discrimination?
Secondly, there is no evidence that there is more discrimination in IT at this point in time than there was in the past in fields that were overwhelmingly male but are now female-dominated (such as Vetinary Science). Evidence of skewness is not evidence of discrimination. Faith-based reasoning has no place in a discussion such as this, and looking back over the posts that you and the rest of the people supporting your position, the only argument that gets made is the "god-of-the-gaps" argument, in that "There used to be more women in tech than now. It must be discrimination". Faith-based reasoning, in other words.
Yes, because the law defines reality and morality, right?
Maybe not, but everyone has already decided that it's a pretty good start to the definitions of reality and morality. The people who broke laws in the past because those laws were "unjust" (for whatever meaning of unjust you want to use) didn't do it purely to make money first, and perhaps make a statement later. They made a statement; money, if any, came later.
Ghandi didn't have his hunger strikes sponsored. Mandela didn't have corporate backing. They broke laws too.
Uber is no different than a common patent troll, with the only difference being that the patent troll at least has the laws on their side.
If you work your ass of for 10 years, making sure to be the best, only to get passed by for a rookie on a "diversity" quota,
Is that any different from working your ass off for 10 years, making sure to be the best only to get passed by because you're not a man?
The problem is that this sort of "correction" tends to push even more men into working for themselves, thus widening the income gap even more. If you're unable to get hired due to diversity practices the normal thing is to go into business for yourself, i.e. contract. At that point, as a contractor (LLC) the "employer" (now the purchaser) gains no value from discrimination, and will therefore buy for the best value they can get.
How do I know that it won't be a woman? As another poster pointed out below, a man and woman of equal competence and qualifications aren't really equal - the women in the group will tend to prioritise their family while the man won't, hence the man will offer slightly better value (more working hours, etc).
What people like you, I Kan Reed, AniMoJo, Dave420 and others cannot understand is that this cause you are supporting hurts women much more than men. Hell, I'm gainfully employed and I'm STILL doing business on the weekends. More men then ever are willing to jump into a startup while still employed elsewhere, thereby sacrificing ALL oif their time - I haven't met a single woman who is willing to sacrifice their family life, nevermind sacrificing all of their time.
So this "let's push men out of IT" issue simply means that the most motivated male IT workers will make even more, while only the lesser motivated females (the ones who need a scholarship and a round of applause before they'd even apply) are the ones in IT, thus furthering the perception that women shouldn't be in IT. You guys are destroying the cause of women everywhere, and all so that you can feel good about yourself. You should be working on convincing the most highly motivated women to enter; those women aren't looking for handouts in the form of affirmative action. Instead with this noise over making things easier, you're only attracting the dumbest and least motivated, like game "developers" who don't know how to program and have no intention of learning, or former scammers who referred to women as sluts when she was working the con as a pickup artist motivational speaker.
Because those are the people who are chasing away the bright women, not the men.
So how do you explain all those single moms who manage to do both?
Why should I? You are bringing the hypothesis so you should bring the evidence.
To all the people who say "women don't want to work in tech", note that women were the MAJORITY in the early days of computing, right up until the advent of personal computers.
Ahhh... the old "god-of-the-gaps" argument - the old "if you can't explain the numbers then it must be sexism" chestnut. Do you realise that advocating that argument is the same as saying "well, you can't prove god DIDN'T do it".
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (or something like that :-) I also can't prove that the numbers would be different if there were invisible pink unicorns, so I guess that it's invisible pink unicorns fault?
You mean hard wired to sacrifice themselves to take care of their family?
Funny how single moms manage to do both, isn't it?
Wait, what? It's okay if a man sacrifices but not if a woman sacrifices? Who's being sexist now?
money is a store of value
Sorry, no. Money doesn't store value, it measures it in much the same way that rulers don't store distance, they measure it.
> Thermostat yawn no big deal
Depends on where you live. Here in Seattle, every home I've been in that was built in the past twenty-five years has electric heat. If you turn the thermostat up too high, you will be likely to start a fire. My last house caught fire when the thermostat shorted out. I thought the house was too hot when I was leaving to meet a friend, but I was in a hurry so I didn't check on it. When I got home, my house was full of smoke and there were wisps of flames from the wooden frame around my window just above the electric heat. Another few minutes and it would have spread. Also, several fires a year here are started by children turning the thermostats up all of the way. Because there's no forced air in the vast majority of homes in this area, the heater can get hot enough to light paper and wood on fire while the thermostat still reads below 90.
I've got some bad news - the internet connected thingy... say... the next, for example... can still set your house on fire if it shorts out. Being IoT buzzword-ready does not imply that it is safer than the mechanical one.
Hang on, where are you getting a WiFi SoC that runs Linux for $5?
(I'm not being facetious, I'd really rather like to know)
Same goes for clocks, watches, and other such stuff as many of the gears and such are replaced with circuit boards.
Yup. Our vacuum cleaner went on the fritz. I thought, vacuum cleaners are very simple - I can handle this. Cracked it open and... big fancy circuit board! This model had a "bag full" sensor and two speeds, so I guess they put it on a board. At this point I Googled and found that the problem is common and that the board is essentially toast. Fortunately the same Google search showed that Hoover still does a 7 year warranty so I slapped it back together and got it fixed.
But yeah, a simple vacuum is now complicated. Next time I'll buy something with only an off-on switch.
Why not throw the board away and connect a high-voltage switch to power? I did this to a broken vacuum cleaner once - simply threw away the board and wired a switch to directly switch the motor. Put in two switches in and you could have two power levels.
Of course, you don't get all the value-add that the electronics mainboard gave you, like "bag-full" indicator, etc. But really, just empty the thing each time you're done vacuuming, which is probably what you're doing anyway.
less than $30 i can buy a blu ray with a digital copy redeemable on itunes or ultraviolet
But you have to wait several months and avoid spoilers in the meantime. For example, the film Hop took nearly a year after North American theatrical release to be published on DVD and BD in North America. And most people's audio systems are likely not up to par with that of a theater.
Most people turn on subtitles when playing a disk. That beats any "par" set by the theatre.
Racism masked as intelligent analysis. Colonialism/Apartheid and the viewing blacks as savages who are mentally inferior to whites is a big part of the reason they remain an underclass in South Africa.
That's what the stupid masses always say. You did know that I am not white, right? And FYI, the ruling class in SA is overwhelmingly black.
Finally, why are you still in SA? It sounds like a wretched mess. Turn off the lights on your way out....
Because, sadly, I'm divorced with a child who lives with my ex-wife. Any country I "flee" to with my son would happily hand myself and my son back to SA officials when his mum starts the legal process. If I were to leave, I would have to leave my son behind. I cannot do that. The only way to leave would be either:
a) His mum also agrees to leave, and to agree to sign a new contact agreement in the destination country. This is not going to happen as she is a lawyer and, as such, she is useless outside SA. She has no qualification that are applicable anywhere in the world other than in SA (laws differ from country to country and lawyers who are qualified to practice in on country have to redo their degree in another to practice in it).
b) The country itself falls apart to such an extent that I can reasonably claim refugee status in the destination country. They would not then send my son back (and I would not be arrested).
Considering that we run our power off a petrol generator sometimes, I expect anarchy before too long. The blackouts scheduled for Feb/March means that at any given time only one half of the country will have power. Civilisation doesn't last too long without food, and modern food depends on electricity. At the point that any country willingly offers refugee status to SA citizens, that is the point I will leave with my son. Until then I'll endure. My son is only 7, after all.
And what will all our fine corporate interests do when they run out of wage slaves?
I think you worry too much - I'm in the best part of Africa, the most progressive, the most modern, and even here the government can't even keep the lights on. Over here we just came out of a economy crippling 8-month strike (which was preceded by a 6 month strike). In December, due to cable-theft which the government does nothing about, our company ran on diesel generators for two full weeks (averaging 18l/hour).
Our workforce is mostly uneducated and they prefer it that way (seriously, they do). Our pass rate for high-school maths is around 10%. Our high school students rank close to last in maths and science. Our minister of education is on a mission to put religion into schools, as if that would alleviate the systemic problems in our educational system. Our populations is incredibly lazy and refuses to work. Their reasoning is mostly vindicated, as they keep voting for a government that takes from the imddle class and gives to their voter base.
We have roughly 5 million income tax payers supporting around 12 million welfare recipients. The aforementioned 5 million also pay for electricity while the 12 million get it for free. This ratio is only getting worse as time goes on. We have the least amount of corruption compared to any other African state, but we still have annual news about shady arms deals that line politicians pockets at the expense of the people, a president who, in his late 60's, is taking a sixth wife (that taxpayers have to support).
Our president has been found guilty by the public prosecutor of taking almost R300million from the public coffer for his private benefit, was the recipient of bribes in which the dodgy court found the other party guilty of giving the bribe to the president but refused to find the president guilty of accepting it, has been tried for rape (acquitted, though: he claimed it was consensual), believes that having a shower after sex will prevent him from getting HIV and is unable to read numbers with more than 5 digits (seriously, check youtube).
Multiple areas have to rely on cellphones, due to cable-theft affecting POTS lines (I'm in such an area), water routinely gets cut off due to not enough power to run pumping stations. The middle class (mentioned above) all pay for private security to guard their homes because the woefully underfunded and under-manned police force simply cannot keep up with the crime rate.
Yeah, I did mention that we are the best that Africa has to offer, right? Good luck to any company trying to set up manufacturing or processing facilities here - the population is so lazy, that even though we have a 25% unemployment rate (in practice it is higher, this low number is due to the way they count "unemployed") the only people who are willing to work as gardeners are from a neighbouring country.
The cherry on top? Your business could easily be nationalised if the president decides that the kickback is not high enough. Seriously, good luck with moving stuff from China to here. China has a well-earned reputation for being a nation of hard and industrious workers. They may steal ideas, but they still work more hours than everyone else. Your manufacturing facility is safe there. Our workers refuse to accept an double-inflation raise and strike for 8 months out of 12. Your manufacturing facility won't survive here - the automakers are now planning on moving out (they were the first to come here for the cheap labour).
For forever tainting their slashdot ID's by repeated endorsing and defending the exposed Liar, Anti-Women Sexist, Pick Up Artist-who-calls-women-sluts, $160k-richer-after-all-this .... the one, the only .... Anita S.
:-)
Oh, wait, it's not that kind of award?
[shameless plug] Hey, I'm somebody you've never heard of either! [/shameless plug]
:-)