I don't know what it is. I just know that the standard narratives fail to explain it. It extends further than computer science: Why is chemistry at parity and physics so far from it? Why is mathematics around 40% if girls being told "Math is Hard" is the problem? I think no one knows these answers and that is why various programs designed to bring more women into the field generally fail to make a lasting impact -- they simply aren't targeted at the proper causes.
I don't think I can take a position on whether the number of women in computing should increase, decrease, or stay the same without knowing the reasons for the disparity.
Then they implemented Operation Eliminate the Macho Effect: guys who showed-off in class were taken aside in class and told, âoeYouâ(TM)re so passionate about the material and youâ(TM)re so well prepared. Iâ(TM)d love to continue our conversations but letâ(TM)s just do it one on one.â
Ah. So the trick to increasing female participation isn't to encourage women -- it's to discourage interested men.
Somebody has to be at the top, the thing is that it was all part of a similar trend and while that trend continued for women in other disciplines long after 1984 it didn't for women in CS.
"Somebody has to be at the top" is a cop-out. It might be that but that's an explanation that should only be accepted after ruling others out.
And while the trend continued for women in some other disciplines, it did not continue for women in other disciplines, in particular most of engineering.
I thought it was interesting that you failed to provide a citation for your claims. Obviously you had just googled it yourself. When someone does that, it is a clear indicator that they know they are misrepresenting the facts and are hoping nobody is going to double-check them.
Actually I had found it some time ago and was not looking at the original source, but a spreadsheet I'd made. My source was the NSF.
So when it actually turned out that the percentage of bachelors degrees in STEM in general, and in physics specifically, going to females continued to grow at nearly the same rate the 20 years after 1984 that it had been for the 20 years before 1984, I was completely unsurprised.
That's correct, and doesn't contradict what I said in any way. Physics grew much more slowly, and kept growing until 2002, but it topped out that year, at 22.6%. That same year, Computer Science was at 27.5%. Both fields dropped after that, CS more sharply. But the 1984 peak-and-drop was peculiar to CS.
There's something going on, or at least something has gone on, that is both particular to computer science (and thus unlikely to be due to general attitudes towards mathematics education or anything similar), and much more variable than long term social pressure of any sort.
Women who try the macho, alpha dog thing get labelled bitch.
So if they are female and act like a dog they're called a bitch? What did they expect?
Men who do the macho, alpha dog thing get called ALL sorts of names by those they stepped on, usually behind their back. Do it in front of them and you'll be fired or at least humiliated. They don't care what their underlings think as long as they remains outwardly submissive; that's what being alpha is about.
So this creates an interesting discussion. Does the work simply attract/harbor the culture, or is it actively feeding the culture? Do men who fit the misogynistic stereotype feel drawn to the STEM because it fits into their line of thinking? Is it the typical male nerd we see in media who is driven by inadequate social skills and female rejection to seek solace in a computer or devote vasts amounts of time to a specialized skill like required in most STEM fields?
Or how about neither? How about if a generally "misogynistic culture" among men in tech is a fabrication, and individual misogynists actually less prevalent in tech than in fields like sales or advertising which attract the more "alpha male" type (and are yet less male-dominated). How about if we're being sold the idea of a misogynistic nerd culture because those doing the selling feel that as nerds, we'll be more likely to accept that idea than the completely un-self-aware and unapologetic "bro" type?
Because it was at a time when women were increasing their participation in nearly all areas of society so their increase in CS was not particularly extraordinary. What is extraordinary is that while female participation in most other fields maintained or even continued to increase, the trend was reversed for CS.
Nearly all engineering fields did not experience as big an increase in female participation as did CS; many of them fell off as well. Most STEM fields did not see as rapid growth in female enrollment up to 1984 as CS did -- the soft sciences, plus mathematics and chemistry, are the exception. Physics, for instance, topped out at 22%. The curve for CS is certainly unusual -- it grows until 1984, starts dropping about the same rate it was growing, then levels off until 2004 when it drops again. Certainly evolution doesn't operate that fast... but neither do the myriad of social factors proposed, nor does it seem credible the social factors operate so selectively as to affect CS one way, Physics another, and Mathematics and Chemistry a third.
Unfortunately they do have an advantage, though one which you may have some immunity to. The social justice warriors have pretty much taken over HR departments and have great influence over top management at many companies. So if they manage to doxx a male (particularly a white male) and send a note to his employer saying he supports those "nasty misogynists at #GamerGate", he's likely to have a bad time. And he can't defend himself against the accusations, because under the rules of SJWs, contradicting an SJW is misogyny.
Why would your life from that point forward just suck forever?
It would just be... ordinary. Work every day to pay your expenses and hope maybe you'll be able save enough to one day not have to work any more when you're too old to enjoy the free time. Same as the rest of us, but a lot harder to take when you had a chance at something much better.
If someone is going to kill themselves because of the situation they put themselves into (presumably starting a tech company isn't about life and death) what made them stay and not just do something else ?
Many startups start and get going, but neither take off and provide a lot of money for their investors nor run out of money and go bankrupt; they just kind of hang on making just enough to pay their bills. They tend to be lousy places to work and probably suck for those running the company, and the best thing to do is probably to shutter them.
Why shouldn't the same apply to people? You make your big bet and fail, and you won't get another chance. Sure, you could just hang on for the next few decades doing the same things other people do, but you won't have anything to look forward to, only failure to look back on. Why not just end it there?
Why do you choose the peak of female enrollment percentage as the benchmark? Why not ask what was going on in the 1980s that sent more women into computer science?
So she makes fun of those who go to gaming events -- not in William Shatner on SNL "Get a life, people" style, but apparently with true contempt. Then proceeds to denigrate customers of the game industry further. And she wonders why advertisers might have a problem with that?
It's as if _Bicycling_ magazine were to publish a serious op-ed on how road bikers were a bunch of self-deluded Lance Armstrong wannabees who looked ludicrous in spandex. I think they'd find their advertisers might have a problem with that.
Alexander justifies her attack by claiming the people she attacked weren't REALLY a significant part of the customer base... but they are, and the advertisers know that.
Not true; they are trying to get more men into nursing, so they have someone around to do the heavy lifting. (I'm half tongue-in-cheek about that, but only half)
I graduated in '92, and female CS students were a rarity. That peak around 1984 was an anomaly, which is why those who point to it and wonder what changed are looking at it backwards.
I can see that Iowa can prohibit in-state sales not through dealers, but why would that forbid Tesla from providing test drives and then, if the customer wants to talk turkey, refer them to e.g. a Missouri store, or an Internet site based in another state? This is how Tesla handles NJ; you want a Tesla in NJ you can test drive one and then hop over to NY to buy it.
Is there some Iowa law against manufacturers allowing people to borrow cars for free?
I'm surprised that more homes aren't equipped with house wide 12/24 volt DC, that would go a LONG way towards decreasing the costs/efficiency issues with LED's and many home electronics.
Um, no. Lower voltage means greater losses within the house, given the same wire thickness. Doing the step-down as close as possible to the use means higher efficiency.
Like most complaints about the government that I see on Slashdot, this never happened. They set energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, that's it. Some companies decided to meet those requirements with CFLs, some with LEDs, some with high efficiency incandescents.
There are a very few incandescents which meet the current interim standards. There are none which meet the final standards, which were in fact chosen knowing that. Claiming it was just a matter of setting efficiency standards rather than banning the incandescent bulb is sophistry.
Chances are your dimmers and bulbs just aren't compatible. There are at least four kinds of dimmers out there -- those labeled for incandescent only, those labeled for magnetic ballast, those labeled for electronic ballast, and universal.
These labels are typically wrong, of course (nothing's ever easy).
An incandescent-only dimmer is a leading-edge (forward) phase cut dimmer. It works by turning on the power partway into the sine wave, cutting off the rising edge. It requires only two wires (hot and load), and obtains power for its own use by using the low-resistance path through an incandescent filament when it is off. Generally works poorly if at all with an LED fixture.
An electronic ballast dimmer is a trailing-edge (reverse) phase cut dimmer, and works by turning the power OFF partway into the sine wave. It requires a neutral wire as well as hot and load. Originally intended for low-voltage halogen fixtures using an electronic ballast.
A magnetic ballast dimmer is also a leading-edge (forward) phase cut dimmer, but requires three wires. Originally intended for low-voltage halogen fixtures using a magnetic ballast.
A universal dimmer is a two-wire forward phase cut dimmer that is supposed to work well with both types of ballast, but in practice just sucks.
Your LED lights will likely dim properly with either an electronic ballast dimmer, or a magnetic ballast dimmer (even though the LED certainly uses an electronic ballast), but not both, and will work poorly or not at all with the other types. And of course if you have multiple brands of LED they could require different types.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what it is. I just know that the standard narratives fail to explain it. It extends further than computer science: Why is chemistry at parity and physics so far from it? Why is mathematics around 40% if girls being told "Math is Hard" is the problem? I think no one knows these answers and that is why various programs designed to bring more women into the field generally fail to make a lasting impact -- they simply aren't targeted at the proper causes.
I don't think I can take a position on whether the number of women in computing should increase, decrease, or stay the same without knowing the reasons for the disparity.
Ah. So the trick to increasing female participation isn't to encourage women -- it's to discourage interested men.
But they are definitely too chewy. Carry on, my eight-tentacled friends, you're safe with me.
"Somebody has to be at the top" is a cop-out. It might be that but that's an explanation that should only be accepted after ruling others out.
And while the trend continued for women in some other disciplines, it did not continue for women in other disciplines, in particular most of engineering.
Actually I had found it some time ago and was not looking at the original source, but a spreadsheet I'd made. My source was the NSF.
That's correct, and doesn't contradict what I said in any way. Physics grew much more slowly, and kept growing until 2002, but it topped out that year, at 22.6%. That same year, Computer Science was at 27.5%. Both fields dropped after that, CS more sharply. But the 1984 peak-and-drop was peculiar to CS.
There's something going on, or at least something has gone on, that is both particular to computer science (and thus unlikely to be due to general attitudes towards mathematics education or anything similar), and much more variable than long term social pressure of any sort.
So if they are female and act like a dog they're called a bitch? What did they expect?
Men who do the macho, alpha dog thing get called ALL sorts of names by those they stepped on, usually behind their back. Do it in front of them and you'll be fired or at least humiliated. They don't care what their underlings think as long as they remains outwardly submissive; that's what being alpha is about.
Or how about neither? How about if a generally "misogynistic culture" among men in tech is a fabrication, and individual misogynists actually less prevalent in tech than in fields like sales or advertising which attract the more "alpha male" type (and are yet less male-dominated). How about if we're being sold the idea of a misogynistic nerd culture because those doing the selling feel that as nerds, we'll be more likely to accept that idea than the completely un-self-aware and unapologetic "bro" type?
Nearly all engineering fields did not experience as big an increase in female participation as did CS; many of them fell off as well. Most STEM fields did not see as rapid growth in female enrollment up to 1984 as CS did -- the soft sciences, plus mathematics and chemistry, are the exception. Physics, for instance, topped out at 22%. The curve for CS is certainly unusual -- it grows until 1984, starts dropping about the same rate it was growing, then levels off until 2004 when it drops again. Certainly evolution doesn't operate that fast... but neither do the myriad of social factors proposed, nor does it seem credible the social factors operate so selectively as to affect CS one way, Physics another, and Mathematics and Chemistry a third.
It's "capisce", and Luca Brasi you ain't.
Unfortunately they do have an advantage, though one which you may have some immunity to. The social justice warriors have pretty much taken over HR departments and have great influence over top management at many companies. So if they manage to doxx a male (particularly a white male) and send a note to his employer saying he supports those "nasty misogynists at #GamerGate", he's likely to have a bad time. And he can't defend himself against the accusations, because under the rules of SJWs, contradicting an SJW is misogyny.
Well, most people get zero chances.
It would just be... ordinary. Work every day to pay your expenses and hope maybe you'll be able save enough to one day not have to work any more when you're too old to enjoy the free time. Same as the rest of us, but a lot harder to take when you had a chance at something much better.
Many startups start and get going, but neither take off and provide a lot of money for their investors nor run out of money and go bankrupt; they just kind of hang on making just enough to pay their bills. They tend to be lousy places to work and probably suck for those running the company, and the best thing to do is probably to shutter them.
Why shouldn't the same apply to people? You make your big bet and fail, and you won't get another chance. Sure, you could just hang on for the next few decades doing the same things other people do, but you won't have anything to look forward to, only failure to look back on. Why not just end it there?
Why do you choose the peak of female enrollment percentage as the benchmark? Why not ask what was going on in the 1980s that sent more women into computer science?
So she makes fun of those who go to gaming events -- not in William Shatner on SNL "Get a life, people" style, but apparently with true contempt. Then proceeds to denigrate customers of the game industry further. And she wonders why advertisers might have a problem with that?
It's as if _Bicycling_ magazine were to publish a serious op-ed on how road bikers were a bunch of self-deluded Lance Armstrong wannabees who looked ludicrous in spandex. I think they'd find their advertisers might have a problem with that.
Alexander justifies her attack by claiming the people she attacked weren't REALLY a significant part of the customer base... but they are, and the advertisers know that.
Not true; they are trying to get more men into nursing, so they have someone around to do the heavy lifting. (I'm half tongue-in-cheek about that, but only half)
Extrapolation:
http://xkcd.com/605/
I graduated in '92, and female CS students were a rarity. That peak around 1984 was an anomaly, which is why those who point to it and wonder what changed are looking at it backwards.
If there's a platonic ideal of what C with the features everyone re-invents is, C++ itself is a damn poor approximation of it.
Yes, but she's not likely to engage in a fair public discussion.
It's slashdot, how can you tell they're getting it wrong _deliberately_?
In any case, it appears the SJWs have sown the wind, and inherited the whirlwind. Couldn't happen to a kinder bunch.
Yep. Greater precision, same "accuracy".
Yeah, just watch out for the one who asks for Kim Philby.
I can see that Iowa can prohibit in-state sales not through dealers, but why would that forbid Tesla from providing test drives and then, if the customer wants to talk turkey, refer them to e.g. a Missouri store, or an Internet site based in another state? This is how Tesla handles NJ; you want a Tesla in NJ you can test drive one and then hop over to NY to buy it.
Is there some Iowa law against manufacturers allowing people to borrow cars for free?
Um, no. Lower voltage means greater losses within the house, given the same wire thickness. Doing the step-down as close as possible to the use means higher efficiency.
There are a very few incandescents which meet the current interim standards. There are none which meet the final standards, which were in fact chosen knowing that. Claiming it was just a matter of setting efficiency standards rather than banning the incandescent bulb is sophistry.
Chances are your dimmers and bulbs just aren't compatible. There are at least four kinds of dimmers out there -- those labeled for incandescent only, those labeled for magnetic ballast, those labeled for electronic ballast, and universal.
These labels are typically wrong, of course (nothing's ever easy).
An incandescent-only dimmer is a leading-edge (forward) phase cut dimmer. It works by turning on the power partway into the sine wave, cutting off the rising edge. It requires only two wires (hot and load), and obtains power for its own use by using the low-resistance path through an incandescent filament when it is off. Generally works poorly if at all with an LED fixture.
An electronic ballast dimmer is a trailing-edge (reverse) phase cut dimmer, and works by turning the power OFF partway into the sine wave. It requires a neutral wire as well as hot and load. Originally intended for low-voltage halogen fixtures using an electronic ballast.
A magnetic ballast dimmer is also a leading-edge (forward) phase cut dimmer, but requires three wires. Originally intended for low-voltage halogen fixtures using a magnetic ballast.
A universal dimmer is a two-wire forward phase cut dimmer that is supposed to work well with both types of ballast, but in practice just sucks.
Your LED lights will likely dim properly with either an electronic ballast dimmer, or a magnetic ballast dimmer (even though the LED certainly uses an electronic ballast), but not both, and will work poorly or not at all with the other types. And of course if you have multiple brands of LED they could require different types.
Last person the FAA tried to fine for commercial use of a drone for aerial photography won in the FAAs own court.