You cannot compare jobs requiring physical strength with jobs requiring logical thinking.
I'm not doing that. I'm comparing industries and showing that some are male dominated, and some are female dominated which suggests that on average the sexes are interested in different jobs. As such it would follow that IT may not be interesting to one of the sexes and that might be why we see such an imbalance.
You equate IT with a bunch of unrelated fields based on gender ratio, so its only fair to compare IT to an oppressive regime based on gender ratio.
You are an idiot.
The results speak for themselves.
No, they really don't, that's what I've been trying to say to you. It only says that there is a gender inequality, it doesn't say why there is one.
Regardless of the mechanism for exclusion, the result is the same. And the justification for correcting it is the same.
No, the justification isn't the same. If the reason is simply because women don't want to work in IT then there is NO JUSTIFICATION for wasting resources in trying to convince them, especially since there is no appreciable benefit from recruiting more females.
I'm sorry, but in at least the past 30 years there's been nothing preventing women from going in to any industry they want to, and with affirmative action they actually have advantages over men.
The male dominated industries EXCEPT IT. Which means the argument for biological preference don't apply.
Wrong. I am not arguing WHAT the biological preferences are, I am arguing that there IS biological preference, and as such, the IT industry MAY be something women just don't prefer generally. However since you don't seem to understand that, then I will argue that women probably don't prefer to work in IT by drawing parallels to other industries.
I have worked in IT for approximately 25 years now in both support and architect roles. I would summarize IT work as consisting of three different types: support (break/fix and maintenance), development (programming), and architecture (design and implementation).
You can equate support roles in IT as providing a utility. You support a network, a server or resource of some kind, providing it to others so they can do their work. If it breaks you have to fix it. You have to maintain it. The Utilities industry is male dominated by almost 3:1.
You can equate development to construction but instead of using your brawn you're using your brain to do the work. It is as mentally exhausting as construction is physically. A lot of time is spent sitting at a computer researching, prototyping, and writing code. Construction is male dominated by a factor of 7:1.
You can also equate architecture to construction. You're designing and integrating a system of hardware and/or software. Again, male dominated by 7:1.
The parallels are there. Historically women do not like similar jobs.
Bill Gates recalls once being invited to speak in Saudi Arabia and finding himself facing a segregated audience.
I'm sorry, you don't get to draw parallels between a highly repressive regime and a free society. They prevent women from driving or even showing their hair. We're not preventing women from entering any industry she wishes to enter. We are not excluding half of our talent. Try again.
I am responding to your classification of careers as either "hunt and gather" or "nurture, heal, and educate."
You misunderstand my statement. The male dominated industries are all labour intensive jobs concerned with the hunting, gathering, transporting, or building of stuff. The female dominated industries are concerned with healing and education.
But that doesn't explain why there are so few women in computer science. Sitting at a keyboard all day is the opposite of "hunt and gather" activity.
It's also the opposite of healing and educating. IT can be quite stressful, requires maintenance windows at odd hours, etc. Maybe they just don't want to do it and it's easier for them to go into another industry.
The proportion of male registered nurses has more than tripled since 1970, from 2.7 percent to 9.6 percent.
When the number is that low, it's not hard to triple it. It's still in the single digit percentages. I'd say it's been a futile effort.
That is not a viable theory. Computer science is practically the only field where gender disparity has gotten WORSE.
What about it makes it non-viable? What do you think is more likely: women join the IT industry, find out they don't like it and change careers, or males forcing them out?
You still haven't answered my other question. What would we gain by having more women in IT?
So you found a table that lists 16 different industries and found 6 that had notable gender bias. That is not proof of biological preference; that is cherry-picking data.
No, I found the Labour Force Survey completed by Statistics Canada for the year 2016. It's not just 16 different industries. Those are **all** industries, excluding full time military and those people living on native reserves. The classifications are the North American Industry Classification System is a classification system jointly created by Canada, Mexico, and the US.
And why on earth would keyboard jockies in CS or IT be categorized as "hunt and gather" activities?
They're not, they're classified in the service industry under "Information, culture and recreation".
The gender difference is nurses. And nearly every nursing school and hospital has programs to actively recruit, train and hire more male nurses.
And how long has that been going on? What are the fruits of their labours? Had it made any appreciable difference? From the statistics it doesn't seem like it. Why waste money trying to recruit a class of humans to an industry that don't want to be there? What's the payoff? Couldn't that money be put to better use?
Everybody recognizes the issue and every institution is working to address it. CS and IT should be doing the same.
Is it really an issue though? What are the issues? Is the issue that males are actively pushing out females in the IT industry or that females are just not interested in working in the industry at all? If it's the latter do we really need to "fix" it? What does it gain us if we do?
Let's theorize for a moment that females are just not interested on average in working in IT. Why should we spend resources getting more females interested in working in IT? What does it gain us?
I think you need to check your stats on Medicine. Health and social workers are overwhelmingly more female. I'll use my own country as an example: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/table...
Construction is male dominated 7:1 Natural resource harvesting is male dominated 4:1 Manufacturing is male dominated 3:1 Transportation (trucking) and warehousing is male dominated 3:1
Education is female dominated 2:1 Healthcare and social assistance is female dominated 4:1
It's almost like women don't like to hunt or gather, but rather nurture, heal, and educate. Must be something wrong with these numbers though, that can't be right.
I'll grant you that Irish construction consortium, however two website articles discussing the lack of men in women dominated industries is not the same as the industry itself trying to "fix" the "problem".
Why are you so uninformed?
Really? I don't see any other industry other than tech making a large, concerted effort to recruit a certain class of humans. As far as I know, that Irish construction initiative is a one-off, where as you see tech companies constantly complaining about the lack of diversity, and the latest money-sink push to get more ethnic minorities and women on their payrolls.
Explain that to me. Why would an industry spend money to entice a class of people to work there who don't seem to want to? How does that make them more money?
Why are tech industries different than other industries? You don't see construction companies falling over themselves to try to hire more women. You don't see the healthcare and education sectors launching initiatives to recruit more men. Why is the tech industry unique in this endeavour?
And men have evolved to be hunters and warriors? But how is that related to tech? Channeling natural tendencies into higher-brain-function endeavors requires abstracting away from our basic predispositions.
In evolving to be better hunters and warriors we learned to be inventive, create tools, weapons, machinery, etc. It's what men do, we're interested in it. This is not an abstracting away from our basic predispositions, this is a magnification of them. Does this mean women can not invent, or create tools, weapons, etc? No, of course not, but the empirical evidence shows that these vocations are not what they're interested in.
... why there are less women in tech. Why is this surprising?
Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers. They tend to enjoy those types of fields more than solving technical problems. They tend to go into the healthcare and social welfare fields 4.5x more than men, and education 2x as much as men.
Does this mean they CAN'T be interested in tech, or that they CAN'T solve technical problems? No, however saying there is absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in IT than men is like saying there's absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in construction than men. They simply don't want to do it as much.
The Steam survey is not representative unfortunately. It keeps saying VR headset adoption has flatlined, when we know for certain it is going up. Two AMD Ryzen processors are in the top 5 sellers on Amazon right now. I know it's hard to get actual data without the companies releasing their sales figures, but Ryzen really is converting more people to AMD.
You are wrong. GPUs are being used more and more for general compute. From AI to bitcoin mining they're the way to go. NVidia and AMD both make GPU cards that have no video outputs specifically for data center use.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
I theorize that the genders hate it equally, but men will stick with it anyways because the potential profits are high.
I'm not doing that. I'm comparing industries and showing that some are male dominated, and some are female dominated which suggests that on average the sexes are interested in different jobs. As such it would follow that IT may not be interesting to one of the sexes and that might be why we see such an imbalance.
I'm sorry, but in at least the past 30 years there's been nothing preventing women from going in to any industry they want to, and with affirmative action they actually have advantages over men.
Wrong. I am not arguing WHAT the biological preferences are, I am arguing that there IS biological preference, and as such, the IT industry MAY be something women just don't prefer generally. However since you don't seem to understand that, then I will argue that women probably don't prefer to work in IT by drawing parallels to other industries.
I have worked in IT for approximately 25 years now in both support and architect roles. I would summarize IT work as consisting of three different types: support (break/fix and maintenance), development (programming), and architecture (design and implementation).
You can equate support roles in IT as providing a utility. You support a network, a server or resource of some kind, providing it to others so they can do their work. If it breaks you have to fix it. You have to maintain it. The Utilities industry is male dominated by almost 3:1.
You can equate development to construction but instead of using your brawn you're using your brain to do the work. It is as mentally exhausting as construction is physically. A lot of time is spent sitting at a computer researching, prototyping, and writing code. Construction is male dominated by a factor of 7:1.
You can also equate architecture to construction. You're designing and integrating a system of hardware and/or software. Again, male dominated by 7:1.
The parallels are there. Historically women do not like similar jobs.
I'm sorry, you don't get to draw parallels between a highly repressive regime and a free society. They prevent women from driving or even showing their hair. We're not preventing women from entering any industry she wishes to enter. We are not excluding half of our talent. Try again.
You misunderstand my statement. The male dominated industries are all labour intensive jobs concerned with the hunting, gathering, transporting, or building of stuff. The female dominated industries are concerned with healing and education.
It's also the opposite of healing and educating. IT can be quite stressful, requires maintenance windows at odd hours, etc. Maybe they just don't want to do it and it's easier for them to go into another industry.
When the number is that low, it's not hard to triple it. It's still in the single digit percentages. I'd say it's been a futile effort.
What about it makes it non-viable? What do you think is more likely: women join the IT industry, find out they don't like it and change careers, or males forcing them out?
You still haven't answered my other question. What would we gain by having more women in IT?
No, I found the Labour Force Survey completed by Statistics Canada for the year 2016. It's not just 16 different industries. Those are **all** industries, excluding full time military and those people living on native reserves. The classifications are the North American Industry Classification System is a classification system jointly created by Canada, Mexico, and the US.
They're not, they're classified in the service industry under "Information, culture and recreation".
And how long has that been going on? What are the fruits of their labours? Had it made any appreciable difference? From the statistics it doesn't seem like it. Why waste money trying to recruit a class of humans to an industry that don't want to be there? What's the payoff? Couldn't that money be put to better use?
Is it really an issue though? What are the issues? Is the issue that males are actively pushing out females in the IT industry or that females are just not interested in working in the industry at all? If it's the latter do we really need to "fix" it? What does it gain us if we do?
Let's theorize for a moment that females are just not interested on average in working in IT. Why should we spend resources getting more females interested in working in IT? What does it gain us?
I think you need to check your stats on Medicine. Health and social workers are overwhelmingly more female. I'll use my own country as an example: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/table...
Construction is male dominated 7:1
Natural resource harvesting is male dominated 4:1
Manufacturing is male dominated 3:1
Transportation (trucking) and warehousing is male dominated 3:1
Education is female dominated 2:1
Healthcare and social assistance is female dominated 4:1
It's almost like women don't like to hunt or gather, but rather nurture, heal, and educate. Must be something wrong with these numbers though, that can't be right.
I'll grant you that Irish construction consortium, however two website articles discussing the lack of men in women dominated industries is not the same as the industry itself trying to "fix" the "problem".
Really? I don't see any other industry other than tech making a large, concerted effort to recruit a certain class of humans. As far as I know, that Irish construction initiative is a one-off, where as you see tech companies constantly complaining about the lack of diversity, and the latest money-sink push to get more ethnic minorities and women on their payrolls.
Explain that to me. Why would an industry spend money to entice a class of people to work there who don't seem to want to? How does that make them more money?
Why are tech industries different than other industries? You don't see construction companies falling over themselves to try to hire more women. You don't see the healthcare and education sectors launching initiatives to recruit more men. Why is the tech industry unique in this endeavour?
In evolving to be better hunters and warriors we learned to be inventive, create tools, weapons, machinery, etc. It's what men do, we're interested in it. This is not an abstracting away from our basic predispositions, this is a magnification of them. Does this mean women can not invent, or create tools, weapons, etc? No, of course not, but the empirical evidence shows that these vocations are not what they're interested in.
... why there are less women in tech. Why is this surprising?
Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers. They tend to enjoy those types of fields more than solving technical problems. They tend to go into the healthcare and social welfare fields 4.5x more than men, and education 2x as much as men.
Does this mean they CAN'T be interested in tech, or that they CAN'T solve technical problems? No, however saying there is absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in IT than men is like saying there's absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in construction than men. They simply don't want to do it as much.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
Do NOT open source flash!@!##! Some crazy bunch will turn it into a project and keep it alive. Let the monstrosity die already!
Wouldn't Apple be lobbying FOR encryption in this case?
Where do you think they get the co-processors from? AMD's PSP is some ARM variant, could be qualcomm for all we know.
Alright, so whose processors are you using? Intel has the IME which is the exact same thing, and has already been compromised once.
Ah, seams reasonable. Admittedly I only read one of the articles, but it sounded like the searches triggered the investigation.
My question is, where was the probable cause to link the searches to a name at all?
I've liked Kaspersky's products, unfortunately I can no longer trust them.
The Steam survey is not representative unfortunately. It keeps saying VR headset adoption has flatlined, when we know for certain it is going up. Two AMD Ryzen processors are in the top 5 sellers on Amazon right now. I know it's hard to get actual data without the companies releasing their sales figures, but Ryzen really is converting more people to AMD.
NVIDIA isn't launching shit, ASUS is making mining cards from both NVIDIA and AMD GPUs.
You are wrong. GPUs are being used more and more for general compute. From AI to bitcoin mining they're the way to go. NVidia and AMD both make GPU cards that have no video outputs specifically for data center use.