Yes, some people prefer the Dvorak layout, but if you put two groups of fast typists head-to-head, QWERTY vs. Dvorak, the results will tend to be a toss-up.
I think (as in, have no data to back up) that the reason would simply be that the limiting factor in typing speed is the speed with which your brain can accurately drive your fingers, not the amount of time it takes to move the finger. Hitting 'u' with my left index finger on its home key really isn't any faster than hitting it with my right index finger one key above the home key.
The real advantage -- where "real" is I think still subject to a lack of hard data -- would be that having the most common keys on the home row means less stretching and other motions of the fingers, which could help with RSI.
Both comments are based on my own experience. I'm a reasonably fast touch typer (no professional by any means), and it's my brain that limits my typing speed. However I find dvorak just feels better, and my hands aren't as tired and don't hurt as much after using my keyboard.
Great commentary on the 'Gender Gap in IT' article btw. "Self-fullfilling fallacies" abound in that discussion ("everyone knows girls suck at computers!" Sheesh).
Thanks. It was the hundreth time I read that exact piece of nonsense that I felt I had to respond. Of course the responses only depressed me more. *sigh* Hopefully by the time I retire we can look back at these neanderthals and laugh at them just like we laugh at everyone who thought a woman couldn't make a fine doctor.
I appreciated your take on it. It baffles me how many people instantly leap to nature as the explanation when nurture is so much more obvious and readily available. The problem is people often have a hard time understanding their own culture when they are required to account for its effects. Also if nature is the answer then there is no reason to try to change culture, which is why a lot of people who like the status quo gravitate toward it.
Anyway, thanks for the insight on both that and this article. Peace.
Dude, what are you smoking? This is an old and boring game.
What would I have to smoke for you to make sense?
1. Find some statistical differences between genders/race, etc. 2. Now pick the gender/race that is being oppressed. 3. Concoct the theory for why their position is evidence of oppression.
No, but nice try. The evidence of oppresion is the very real attitudes of men in CS towards women in CS, the most immediately available evidence being this very slashdot discussion. Even if the numbers of men and women were equal, those attitudes would still be evidence of sexism because they are. The disparity between men and women is evidence that the sexism has had a negative effect on women in CS.
You seem to think that if a man ever tells a woman she's going to be less successful at something because she's a woman that this is sexist. But the fact is that, whether that's rude or not, SOMETIME'S IT'S THE TRUTH.
Since when is women being less competent at computer science THE TRUTH?! Huh? Point me to the research! Last I checked, we had some indications that men and women had different distributions in some basic cognitive skills. Nothing I've heard of has tied that to high-level skills which require the combination of many cognitive abilities, such as computer science.
So unless you've got that proof -- and I noticed nobody else in the thread claiming the same thing you are presented any -- then it is NOT a case of a man just telling a woman THE TRUTH, it is a case of a man telling a woman his own prejudiced view of what he believes should be THE TRUTH, which is that women are inferior at [thing man cares about]. Which is called sexism.
Your whole counter-argument is based on the straw man that I don't believe men and women can be different. Yet you base this on me not agreeing with you that this completely unproven difference exists. The assumption that it does exist, that the difference is as obvious as differences in height, is sexist.
In my mind the real sexism is your sexism. You're the one that wants to take a male-dominated subject (CS) and use that as the criteria for judging the "success" of women. You're the one that says that if not enough women are in the CS field they are not succesful.
Ha! Another hilarious strawman, Mr. Women Can't Do CS But You're The Sexist One. I don't feel any need to judge women on general "success", or that such is defined by their presence in CS. I do feel that there are many women who could be and want to be successfull in CS but are discouraged by the sexist attitudes which presume without proof that women are inherently inferior at this job -- because I've met them. Thus I feel both that these women, and the CS industry, are being denied opportunities. Just like I don't think women need to be CEOs to be "successfull", yet I think it was really sexist and stupid and harmful when men did their best to prohibit women from becoming such.
Which is what really amuses and dismays me about your argument. It is the exact same argument that was used to argue that women couldn't make it in medicine, law, and business -- women can't do the job, and heck, I bet they don't even want to! Eventually attitudes changed both causing and caused by increased participation by women, until today you'd look like a real idiot suggesting that women are inherently inferior doctors.
Might as well pretend that men and women have no physical differenes, draft a few women athletes into the NBA and then hold them to the standards of Kobe Bryant or Shaq.
Yes, your straw man is in full blossom now.
Do you seriously think that differences in CS ability are as obvious and measureable as differences in height, weight, athletic ability? Do you honestly think the genetics that determine height are of the same complexity as those producing a brain that can even begin to think about a topic such as computer sc
The assertion that the statement, "Women choose not to enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude." implies the statement, "I am happy with them choosing not to enter." is crap. The former is an explanation of an observation, while the latter is a statement of emotion.
Bull, read the posts. Every single one says "Women choose not to enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude, therefore I do not see the lack of women in engineering as a problem" i.e. they are content with the situation. It's not logic connecting the two statements (so your logical fallacy link is useless), it's the posters themselves connecting them.
Well if you haven't run into any, then bully for you. If you've never run into a man in a position of authority who thinks you don't belong, then that's awesome, times may be changing for the better. If you don't find the persistent anti-women-in-tech attitudes expressed in this very slashdot thread from your potential peers discouraging in the least, then rock on. If you never -- knowingly or otherwise -- face such attitudes during a job interview, then I'll be happy for you. Only when there are enough successfull women in the industry will these fools finally realize saying women don't belong in tech is as stupid as saying they don't belong in medicine or business, via exactly the same process that those fields went through.
Yet avoiding every sign of the Good Ol' Boys industry you're going into is atypical in my conversations with women in tech. Pretty much every woman I know has run into it. Most chose to push on knowing they'll automatically be thought less of, ready to push harder to make up for that. Some were really discouraged, and left the field, indeed agreeing with their antagonists that it "wasn't for them".
I'll take your story as a positive sign, though. Maybe it's location, maybe things have gotten better in the few years since I left school. Either way, I do think it's inevitable. Just frustrating and annoying to see the sexist attitudes of my supposedly intelligent peers in the meantime.
Essentialism is the lie that African Americans are born dumber than whites because they have a lower IQ, rather than looking at the distribution of income and social equality that those people have (Bill Cosby may be rich, but most black folk are still way below the poverty line; in Canada, replace African American with Native to get the same effect).
or better yet, compare to other socio-economic situations outside of the U.S.
All these studies are done in order to prove that social differences are, in fact, essential. Yet they are always done within the society that has these social differences! Show me one study which is done in a culture in which white people are an oppressed minority who were slaves a hundred and fifty years ago, and only attained full civil rights less than fifty years ago, and compare I.Q.s, and then I might think they're on to something.
Until then it's racism posing as science to prove that they aren't racist.
If I may parse "the opinions of men" as meaning a male-dominated field consciously or unconsciously erecting barriers to keep women out, well that might be true. It does cause one to ask why other formerly male dominated fields such as medicine, business or law, are at or more than 50% women entering, while IT steadfastly hovers at the 10% mark. You would have trouble convincing me that male IT people are vastly more sexist than say male lawyers.
You parse correctly. As to why these other fields are different... The first answer is that IT is a much newer profession than medicine or law. Travel back in time to the 60s and 70s, and you absolutely will see women in medicine struggling to break into a workplace whose established (male) members don't think they belong there. Same with business and law -- remember the 'glass ceiling'? It took decades for women to break through to the point where a CEO being a woman isn't by itself a news item. As for law -- another poster pointed out that while the number of women entering law as associates is very large, the number who are becoming partners is still a tiny proportion compared to men, and some women are leaving the field as a result. Perhaps there is something genetic that makes women good associates, but not partners, at a law firm! *snort*
So is IT a more sexist field than medicine or law? In some ways, yes, but not any more so than when women were first trying to work their way into those fields. It's not so much more sexist as less mature. Give it time. I'm both dismayed and encouraged by the fact that the arguments why women aren't equally represented in IT mirror the same ones used in medicine, business, and law. Dismayed because sexism from decades ago is being repeated verbatim, encouraged because it has been overcome before. So over time I'm hoping that these ideas will fade out as more women show with their lives that this isn't true -- but in the meantime I mourn it not happening earlier because the women who could show this are discouraged from doing so by the men who believe they can't.
As far as discussing the "nature" of men and women. I'm happy to do so in an environment in which there is not a presumption of inferiority and a presumption that this nature trumps the behavioral aspects that are quite evident. Whenever someone wants to bring in "biological" differences into the equation, it's so that they can prove that the social differences we see are in fact the result of biology, so there is no reason to try to address the social issue. If it wasn't just the centuries-old argument that "disenfranchised group X is so because of their nature" even as X changes from place to place and time to time. If it was ever not the case that the person bringing biology to the table had this as their not-so-hidden pre-conclusion, I would be more willing to discuss it.
As it is, I hear are a bunch of male IT workers saying "It's not that we discriminate against women, it's that they're biologically inferior for this job!" Nothing like proving yourself wrong with your own denial, eh?
Regardless of what you think of biology, the social barrier clearly exists and thus it is not a waste of time to try to dismantle it.
What this all translates into is a company that can offer power at a reduced price to its consumer, because of the associated cost savings and secondary revenue stream.
Sure, they could offer power at a reduced price. Or they could post a larger profit by reducing their costs while keeping income the same.
If you're referring to Larry Summers, that's a misrepresentation of what he said. His claim was that *on average*, men are more interested in technical fields, and there's strong evidence that this is true. (Whether it's due to biological or social issues is a separate matter).
Bull-cocky. He explicitly referred to intrinsic -- meaning biological -- differences in aptitude being dominant over social and discriminatory factors. The relevent statement from his speech:
"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
I'm pretty sure the majority of male IT workers would be quite happy to have a higher percentage of females around.
Sure, "around", but how about "competing for promotions"? If the women were around but in a non-engineering capacity would these male IT workers care?
No, I'm not misinterpreting. It is the difference between those two statements that I am looking at.
"Women SHOULDN'T enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude". vs "Women CHOOSE NOT TO enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude".
Both statements represent a male-held negative stereotype of women in CS. The only difference is passive vs active. "I don't want them to enter" vs "I am happy with them choosing not to enter". Both express the end result -- fewer women in CS -- as being the result of the nature of women, rather than the opinions of men. In terms of discouraging women from entering this male dominated field, what exactly is the difference? Either way women are hearing men tell them that they are not going to be as successfull, merely because of their sex. Either way the woman is going to feel the men will be less inclined to view them as successfull, regardless of their actual accomplishments. Either way I would not trust this man to make fair hiring decisions.
Active vs. passive isn't the difference between sexism and not sexism.
This whole thread is filled with endless examples of the following irony.
[male computer scientist]: "It's not that there are [male dominated] societal attitudes that discourage women from entering CS, it's that women by nature are not designed to be interested in or successfull at CS!"
Look, there are very real artificial barriers set up before women attempting enter computer fields, and most of the attempts by men here to deny these barriers simply prove they exist.
Tear down those barriers, for starters by losing your own attitude, and if the resulting mix of men-women is 60:40 then you'll have a point.
My "common-sense" theory is based on reading the comments by male CS students/professionals in this thread, the number saying women don't want to be in computers, that gender differences mean women won't be as good in computers, that the gender gap is natural like evolution, and of course it has nothing to do with men discouraging women from entering computer fields.
So right here on the pages of/., we have both 1) CS males denying the theory of causation in the article and 2) doing exactly what the article says.
What does common sense say about that? "Of course women aren't being discouraged from the field of CS by men, just that I as a male in CS think women can't do the job as well and don't want to do the job -- of course it's just their own choice when they drop out".
My real experience is that the number of women in introductory classes started high, and halved every semester until you were lucky if there was one women, even more lucky two, in a graduate course. From working with and grading the papers of these student or meeting them in office hours, I saw every bit of evidence I need to see that women are just as capable and just as motivated to study CS as men. No, I can't look into their heads and know why they left the program, but certainly a few have told me flat out that they are discouraged by the lack of role models. Which pisses me off, because I know we've lost some excellent minds.
As far as every other profession -- they have had exactly this problem! Women in medicine? Today a woman doctor isn't unusual at all, but it certainly was thirty years ago! Women had to break into the field and prove their worthiness to be a doctor instead of a nurse. Once there were prominent women doctors, and women teaching in medical schools, and the stereotypes that discouraged women were torn down, then yes you started to see more women join.
It has always been this way, whenever a new group starts to compete for jobs with the established. Whether that was European immigrants, freed slaves, or women after WWII, those who had previously had exclusive rights to some field believed they were entitled to those fields and the others would be inherently inferior, and only after time and great effort were these situations changed.
Common sense says that CS and IT and engineering are no different than any other field, and the stubborn refusal of men to accept women is both the cause of the continuing discrepancy, and a dinosaur of the last century.
Feh. Have you dug around the many articles about women in computing here on/.? You can find plenty of men expressing the opinion that women should not enter software or engineering, because they "have different interests" or "aren't as capable at math and logic". Is the Dean of a major university saying exactly that not overt enough for you? Just because you won't hear that expressed in the halls of your workplace due to fear of reprisal doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist and that it doesn't enter in to hiring decisions.
So combine this active discouragement with the not overt but quite obvious to someone sensitive to them factors such as lack of female role models or even peers and I'm not surprised at all at the widening gender gap.
The problem with actively recruiting women is that we can't because they aren't there due to the problems above. The only part of the gender gap that "may or may not be simply the nature of things"* is the tendency of a privileged group to feel threatened by and try to exclude another group from joining and possibly stealing their privilege. Justifying their exclusion as being the natural state of things is absolutely classic.
* By the way, good job not being over or anything in your discouragement of women; just leave it open to debate like a good reasonable engineer. I'm sure no mere female will catch it and determine that the male establishment feels she doesn't belong. Is this what you meant by not actively discouraging?
In the medicine world, we have excessive regulations, and prices have climbed beyond inflation.
Sorry, sorry, sorry... But with things like teenage anti-depression pills causing suicides to Oxycotin, you're going to have to work very hard to convince me that the problem is excessive regulation, rather than insufficient dilligence with regard to current regulation. The FDA is one of those government regulatory bodies that I consider essential against the proven background of corporate malfeasance with regards to medicine. And the pharma's own financials show that it is their advertising budgets, not R&D/regulation compliance budgets, that dominate their costs yet have not kept them from both incredible profits and incredible profit growth.
The reason medicine prices have climbed beyond inflation is simple: patents.
Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir. I know practically no one is going to read this now that the story is off the main page and the RSS.
Yeah, I know. I myself knew it was largely futile to make the point I did. Since "correlation does not imply causation" is a mantra for refuting a lot of the bad science that shows up on/., I thought I'd point out in advance to the inevitable non-scientific skeptic why in this case it did not hold.
But now I almost can't keep from laughing at myself for wanting to try, anyway.:)
The funny thing is the seals like to find a nice new boat, the kind with an easy to reach swim platform and then have a sunbathing party on said boat. They proceed to trash the boat by shitting all over it, tear up the gear with mating/territory fights, and then finally they pack onto it like a bunch of high schoolers in a compact car on a Friday night, sink it with their shear weight.
So yes, correlation does not prove causation, but then we have a lot more to claim causation than just a correlation.
It's worth pointing out that in fact it is only when you have a non-statistical scientific reason for there to be causation that one can begin to say that correlation is more than correlation.
And so they should, to the good bleeding-heart liberal who favors progressive taxation and government handouts for the less fortunate. Compare the average yearly incomes in the different states and you will see what I mean.
It's true they should. The irony I've always taken from the factoid is that the red-state voters are voting for a party who is against the idea of spreading wealth from the rich to the poor. Personally I have no problem with them continuing to benefit from this irony.
Funny how fast that left wing sympathy for the downtrodden vanishes, when the benefits go to stubborn rednecks that don't reward their patrons with votes!
You're talking about Democrats, not the "left wing", and yes they view it as a competition, like some kind of team sport, where the redneck red-staters are some kind of enemy. Which is why I refuse to participate in partisan politics.
A) The childs fault, for not knowing better B) Your fault, for being careless C) The pharmaceutical companies fault, for making the pill in the first place D) The pharmacys fault, for making the pill bottle openable E) A & B F) C & D
The right answer is clearly 'B',
No, the right answer is B & D, if in fact the pill was potentially harmful but not in a child proof bottle.
Personal responsibility is great, as long as it doesn't involve absolving others of their responsibilities in the process. Perfect example:
I missed the bit where they held people down and made them smoke, but it clearly happened at some point.
You missed the bit where nicotine was discovered to be one of the most highly addictive substances, in particular in terms of difficulty of quitting, despite the under-oath testimony of tabacco executives to the contrary?
Did smokers make a mistake they need to take responsibility for when they took up smoking? Absolutely. Did the tobacco executives make criminal mistakes that they need to be held accountable for when they advertised an addictive product, suppressed research regarding it's true effect while creating fake research that claimed it was harmless? Absolutely.
Any sense of "personal responsibility" that requires that only one party can have any responsibility is nonsense.
Any sense of "personal responsibility" that absolves the makers of an addictive product of guilt for lying about the nature of that product for decades is the opposite of responsibility.
Food which not only fed and fueled the cruel brain of the warmonger, but also empowered his soldiers to perform the killing acts! Lord forgive me for my crimes!
In the future, I hope we will all restrict access to food only to those who would use the calories for peaceful purposes. Before you ask, starving people who I consider potentially violent is in fact peaceful.
What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.
Then why didn't our worthless defense secretary actually have a plan for the post-military-ass-kicking part of the invasion?
If he knew that the post-invasion would be this difficult, but did not develop a serious plan, then he is negligent. If he didn't know, he is incompetent and less qualified than you or I to hold his post.
I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Monday morning? What about Saturday Afternoon?! Many of the problems we are having were predicted in advance by established members and ex-members of the military and they were ignored by the administration as being biased and politically motivated. Because of course the admin. isn't...
Saturday
Asst. Coach: If you don't change your play book, you're going to lose.
Coach: Everything will be fine. You're only saying that because you don't like me. Sunday:
[horrible loss] Monday:
Asst. Coach: You should have changed your play book.
Coach: It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback!
There is nothing more infuriating than hearing people say that the problems and mistakes in Iraq could not have been known in advance and it's all post-facto criticism, because it means they weren't paying attention in the first place.
BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out.;-)
If more U.S. soldiers had died "post-war" in Germany than "during-war", this point would be meaningful in the slightest. Clearly, we are not "post-war" in Iraq.
And I hope you realize that much of the criticism of during-war Iraq mirrors criticism of during-war Algiers and Vietnam -- and look how those turned out.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, some people prefer the Dvorak layout, but if you put two groups of fast typists head-to-head, QWERTY vs. Dvorak, the results will tend to be a toss-up.
I think (as in, have no data to back up) that the reason would simply be that the limiting factor in typing speed is the speed with which your brain can accurately drive your fingers, not the amount of time it takes to move the finger. Hitting 'u' with my left index finger on its home key really isn't any faster than hitting it with my right index finger one key above the home key.
The real advantage -- where "real" is I think still subject to a lack of hard data -- would be that having the most common keys on the home row means less stretching and other motions of the fingers, which could help with RSI.
Both comments are based on my own experience. I'm a reasonably fast touch typer (no professional by any means), and it's my brain that limits my typing speed. However I find dvorak just feels better, and my hands aren't as tired and don't hurt as much after using my keyboard.
Great commentary on the 'Gender Gap in IT' article btw. "Self-fullfilling fallacies" abound in that discussion ("everyone knows girls suck at computers!" Sheesh).
Thanks. It was the hundreth time I read that exact piece of nonsense that I felt I had to respond. Of course the responses only depressed me more. *sigh* Hopefully by the time I retire we can look back at these neanderthals and laugh at them just like we laugh at everyone who thought a woman couldn't make a fine doctor.
I appreciated your take on it. It baffles me how many people instantly leap to nature as the explanation when nurture is so much more obvious and readily available. The problem is people often have a hard time understanding their own culture when they are required to account for its effects. Also if nature is the answer then there is no reason to try to change culture, which is why a lot of people who like the status quo gravitate toward it.
Anyway, thanks for the insight on both that and this article. Peace.
Dude, what are you smoking? This is an old and boring game.
What would I have to smoke for you to make sense?
1. Find some statistical differences between genders/race, etc.
2. Now pick the gender/race that is being oppressed.
3. Concoct the theory for why their position is evidence of oppression.
No, but nice try. The evidence of oppresion is the very real attitudes of men in CS towards women in CS, the most immediately available evidence being this very slashdot discussion. Even if the numbers of men and women were equal, those attitudes would still be evidence of sexism because they are. The disparity between men and women is evidence that the sexism has had a negative effect on women in CS.
You seem to think that if a man ever tells a woman she's going to be less successful at something because she's a woman that this is sexist. But the fact is that, whether that's rude or not, SOMETIME'S IT'S THE TRUTH.
Since when is women being less competent at computer science THE TRUTH?! Huh? Point me to the research! Last I checked, we had some indications that men and women had different distributions in some basic cognitive skills. Nothing I've heard of has tied that to high-level skills which require the combination of many cognitive abilities, such as computer science.
So unless you've got that proof -- and I noticed nobody else in the thread claiming the same thing you are presented any -- then it is NOT a case of a man just telling a woman THE TRUTH, it is a case of a man telling a woman his own prejudiced view of what he believes should be THE TRUTH, which is that women are inferior at [thing man cares about]. Which is called sexism.
Your whole counter-argument is based on the straw man that I don't believe men and women can be different. Yet you base this on me not agreeing with you that this completely unproven difference exists. The assumption that it does exist, that the difference is as obvious as differences in height, is sexist.
In my mind the real sexism is your sexism. You're the one that wants to take a male-dominated subject (CS) and use that as the criteria for judging the "success" of women. You're the one that says that if not enough women are in the CS field they are not succesful.
Ha! Another hilarious strawman, Mr. Women Can't Do CS But You're The Sexist One. I don't feel any need to judge women on general "success", or that such is defined by their presence in CS. I do feel that there are many women who could be and want to be successfull in CS but are discouraged by the sexist attitudes which presume without proof that women are inherently inferior at this job -- because I've met them. Thus I feel both that these women, and the CS industry, are being denied opportunities. Just like I don't think women need to be CEOs to be "successfull", yet I think it was really sexist and stupid and harmful when men did their best to prohibit women from becoming such.
Which is what really amuses and dismays me about your argument. It is the exact same argument that was used to argue that women couldn't make it in medicine, law, and business -- women can't do the job, and heck, I bet they don't even want to! Eventually attitudes changed both causing and caused by increased participation by women, until today you'd look like a real idiot suggesting that women are inherently inferior doctors.
Might as well pretend that men and women have no physical differenes, draft a few women athletes into the NBA and then hold them to the standards of Kobe Bryant or Shaq.
Yes, your straw man is in full blossom now.
Do you seriously think that differences in CS ability are as obvious and measureable as differences in height, weight, athletic ability? Do you honestly think the genetics that determine height are of the same complexity as those producing a brain that can even begin to think about a topic such as computer sc
The assertion that the statement, "Women choose not to enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude." implies the statement, "I am happy with them choosing not to enter." is crap. The former is an explanation of an observation, while the latter is a statement of emotion.
Bull, read the posts. Every single one says "Women choose not to enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude, therefore I do not see the lack of women in engineering as a problem" i.e. they are content with the situation. It's not logic connecting the two statements (so your logical fallacy link is useless), it's the posters themselves connecting them.
Well if you haven't run into any, then bully for you. If you've never run into a man in a position of authority who thinks you don't belong, then that's awesome, times may be changing for the better. If you don't find the persistent anti-women-in-tech attitudes expressed in this very slashdot thread from your potential peers discouraging in the least, then rock on. If you never -- knowingly or otherwise -- face such attitudes during a job interview, then I'll be happy for you. Only when there are enough successfull women in the industry will these fools finally realize saying women don't belong in tech is as stupid as saying they don't belong in medicine or business, via exactly the same process that those fields went through.
Yet avoiding every sign of the Good Ol' Boys industry you're going into is atypical in my conversations with women in tech. Pretty much every woman I know has run into it. Most chose to push on knowing they'll automatically be thought less of, ready to push harder to make up for that. Some were really discouraged, and left the field, indeed agreeing with their antagonists that it "wasn't for them".
I'll take your story as a positive sign, though. Maybe it's location, maybe things have gotten better in the few years since I left school. Either way, I do think it's inevitable. Just frustrating and annoying to see the sexist attitudes of my supposedly intelligent peers in the meantime.
Essentialism is the lie that African Americans are born dumber than whites because they have a lower IQ, rather than looking at the distribution of income and social equality that those people have (Bill Cosby may be rich, but most black folk are still way below the poverty line; in Canada, replace African American with Native to get the same effect).
or better yet, compare to other socio-economic situations outside of the U.S.
All these studies are done in order to prove that social differences are, in fact, essential. Yet they are always done within the society that has these social differences! Show me one study which is done in a culture in which white people are an oppressed minority who were slaves a hundred and fifty years ago, and only attained full civil rights less than fifty years ago, and compare I.Q.s, and then I might think they're on to something.
Until then it's racism posing as science to prove that they aren't racist.
If I may parse "the opinions of men" as meaning a male-dominated field consciously or unconsciously erecting barriers to keep women out, well that might be true. It does cause one to ask why other formerly male dominated fields such as medicine, business or law, are at or more than 50% women entering, while IT steadfastly hovers at the 10% mark. You would have trouble convincing me that male IT people are vastly more sexist than say male lawyers.
You parse correctly. As to why these other fields are different... The first answer is that IT is a much newer profession than medicine or law. Travel back in time to the 60s and 70s, and you absolutely will see women in medicine struggling to break into a workplace whose established (male) members don't think they belong there. Same with business and law -- remember the 'glass ceiling'? It took decades for women to break through to the point where a CEO being a woman isn't by itself a news item. As for law -- another poster pointed out that while the number of women entering law as associates is very large, the number who are becoming partners is still a tiny proportion compared to men, and some women are leaving the field as a result. Perhaps there is something genetic that makes women good associates, but not partners, at a law firm! *snort*
So is IT a more sexist field than medicine or law? In some ways, yes, but not any more so than when women were first trying to work their way into those fields. It's not so much more sexist as less mature. Give it time. I'm both dismayed and encouraged by the fact that the arguments why women aren't equally represented in IT mirror the same ones used in medicine, business, and law. Dismayed because sexism from decades ago is being repeated verbatim, encouraged because it has been overcome before. So over time I'm hoping that these ideas will fade out as more women show with their lives that this isn't true -- but in the meantime I mourn it not happening earlier because the women who could show this are discouraged from doing so by the men who believe they can't.
As far as discussing the "nature" of men and women. I'm happy to do so in an environment in which there is not a presumption of inferiority and a presumption that this nature trumps the behavioral aspects that are quite evident. Whenever someone wants to bring in "biological" differences into the equation, it's so that they can prove that the social differences we see are in fact the result of biology, so there is no reason to try to address the social issue. If it wasn't just the centuries-old argument that "disenfranchised group X is so because of their nature" even as X changes from place to place and time to time. If it was ever not the case that the person bringing biology to the table had this as their not-so-hidden pre-conclusion, I would be more willing to discuss it.
As it is, I hear are a bunch of male IT workers saying "It's not that we discriminate against women, it's that they're biologically inferior for this job!" Nothing like proving yourself wrong with your own denial, eh?
Regardless of what you think of biology, the social barrier clearly exists and thus it is not a waste of time to try to dismantle it.
Yep, and I realized as much a couple months ago, and have simply been too lazy to change it.
:)
The intent was for blackbox voting to be where you find out who the enemies of democracy are, not the enemy itself.
What this all translates into is a company that can offer power at a reduced price to its consumer, because of the associated cost savings and secondary revenue stream.
Sure, they could offer power at a reduced price. Or they could post a larger profit by reducing their costs while keeping income the same.
I'm wondering which they'll pick.
If you're referring to Larry Summers, that's a misrepresentation of what he said. His claim was that *on average*, men are more interested in technical fields, and there's strong evidence that this is true. (Whether it's due to biological or social issues is a separate matter).
Bull-cocky. He explicitly referred to intrinsic -- meaning biological -- differences in aptitude being dominant over social and discriminatory factors. The relevent statement from his speech:
"So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."
I'm pretty sure the majority of male IT workers would be quite happy to have a higher percentage of females around.
Sure, "around", but how about "competing for promotions"? If the women were around but in a non-engineering capacity would these male IT workers care?
No, I'm not misinterpreting. It is the difference between those two statements that I am looking at.
"Women SHOULDN'T enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude".
vs
"Women CHOOSE NOT TO enter engineering because they aren't interested or lack the aptitude".
Both statements represent a male-held negative stereotype of women in CS. The only difference is passive vs active. "I don't want them to enter" vs "I am happy with them choosing not to enter". Both express the end result -- fewer women in CS -- as being the result of the nature of women, rather than the opinions of men. In terms of discouraging women from entering this male dominated field, what exactly is the difference? Either way women are hearing men tell them that they are not going to be as successfull, merely because of their sex. Either way the woman is going to feel the men will be less inclined to view them as successfull, regardless of their actual accomplishments. Either way I would not trust this man to make fair hiring decisions.
Active vs. passive isn't the difference between sexism and not sexism.
This whole thread is filled with endless examples of the following irony.
[male computer scientist]: "It's not that there are [male dominated] societal attitudes that discourage women from entering CS, it's that women by nature are not designed to be interested in or successfull at CS!"
Look, there are very real artificial barriers set up before women attempting enter computer fields, and most of the attempts by men here to deny these barriers simply prove they exist.
Tear down those barriers, for starters by losing your own attitude, and if the resulting mix of men-women is 60:40 then you'll have a point.
That's your common sense theory?
/., we have both 1) CS males denying the theory of causation in the article and 2) doing exactly what the article says.
My "common-sense" theory is based on reading the comments by male CS students/professionals in this thread, the number saying women don't want to be in computers, that gender differences mean women won't be as good in computers, that the gender gap is natural like evolution, and of course it has nothing to do with men discouraging women from entering computer fields.
So right here on the pages of
What does common sense say about that? "Of course women aren't being discouraged from the field of CS by men, just that I as a male in CS think women can't do the job as well and don't want to do the job -- of course it's just their own choice when they drop out".
My real experience is that the number of women in introductory classes started high, and halved every semester until you were lucky if there was one women, even more lucky two, in a graduate course. From working with and grading the papers of these student or meeting them in office hours, I saw every bit of evidence I need to see that women are just as capable and just as motivated to study CS as men. No, I can't look into their heads and know why they left the program, but certainly a few have told me flat out that they are discouraged by the lack of role models. Which pisses me off, because I know we've lost some excellent minds.
As far as every other profession -- they have had exactly this problem! Women in medicine? Today a woman doctor isn't unusual at all, but it certainly was thirty years ago! Women had to break into the field and prove their worthiness to be a doctor instead of a nurse. Once there were prominent women doctors, and women teaching in medical schools, and the stereotypes that discouraged women were torn down, then yes you started to see more women join.
It has always been this way, whenever a new group starts to compete for jobs with the established. Whether that was European immigrants, freed slaves, or women after WWII, those who had previously had exclusive rights to some field believed they were entitled to those fields and the others would be inherently inferior, and only after time and great effort were these situations changed.
Common sense says that CS and IT and engineering are no different than any other field, and the stubborn refusal of men to accept women is both the cause of the continuing discrepancy, and a dinosaur of the last century.
Feh. Have you dug around the many articles about women in computing here on /.? You can find plenty of men expressing the opinion that women should not enter software or engineering, because they "have different interests" or "aren't as capable at math and logic". Is the Dean of a major university saying exactly that not overt enough for you? Just because you won't hear that expressed in the halls of your workplace due to fear of reprisal doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist and that it doesn't enter in to hiring decisions.
So combine this active discouragement with the not overt but quite obvious to someone sensitive to them factors such as lack of female role models or even peers and I'm not surprised at all at the widening gender gap.
The problem with actively recruiting women is that we can't because they aren't there due to the problems above. The only part of the gender gap that "may or may not be simply the nature of things"* is the tendency of a privileged group to feel threatened by and try to exclude another group from joining and possibly stealing their privilege. Justifying their exclusion as being the natural state of things is absolutely classic.
* By the way, good job not being over or anything in your discouragement of women; just leave it open to debate like a good reasonable engineer. I'm sure no mere female will catch it and determine that the male establishment feels she doesn't belong. Is this what you meant by not actively discouraging?
In the medicine world, we have excessive regulations, and prices have climbed beyond inflation.
Sorry, sorry, sorry... But with things like teenage anti-depression pills causing suicides to Oxycotin, you're going to have to work very hard to convince me that the problem is excessive regulation, rather than insufficient dilligence with regard to current regulation. The FDA is one of those government regulatory bodies that I consider essential against the proven background of corporate malfeasance with regards to medicine. And the pharma's own financials show that it is their advertising budgets, not R&D/regulation compliance budgets, that dominate their costs yet have not kept them from both incredible profits and incredible profit growth.
The reason medicine prices have climbed beyond inflation is simple: patents.
I'm assuming that in your complete "12 days of Slashdot Christmas" lyrics, the phrase "editors a-editing" never appears. :)
Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir. I know practically no one is going to read this now that the story is off the main page and the RSS.
/., I thought I'd point out in advance to the inevitable non-scientific skeptic why in this case it did not hold.
:)
Yeah, I know. I myself knew it was largely futile to make the point I did. Since "correlation does not imply causation" is a mantra for refuting a lot of the bad science that shows up on
But now I almost can't keep from laughing at myself for wanting to try, anyway.
The funny thing is the seals like to find a nice new boat, the kind with an easy to reach swim platform and then have a sunbathing party on said boat. They proceed to trash the boat by shitting all over it, tear up the gear with mating/territory fights, and then finally they pack onto it like a bunch of high schoolers in a compact car on a Friday night, sink it with their shear weight.
That's god-damned hilarious.
So yes, correlation does not prove causation, but then we have a lot more to claim causation than just a correlation.
It's worth pointing out that in fact it is only when you have a non-statistical scientific reason for there to be causation that one can begin to say that correlation is more than correlation.
The Industry : Wait, I have more useless, stupid, freedom-crippling, ads-enforcing, shiny technologies to sell !
Did you say shiny? Gimme!
And so they should, to the good bleeding-heart liberal who favors progressive taxation and government handouts for the less fortunate. Compare the average yearly incomes in the different states and you will see what I mean.
It's true they should. The irony I've always taken from the factoid is that the red-state voters are voting for a party who is against the idea of spreading wealth from the rich to the poor. Personally I have no problem with them continuing to benefit from this irony.
Funny how fast that left wing sympathy for the downtrodden vanishes, when the benefits go to stubborn rednecks that don't reward their patrons with votes!
You're talking about Democrats, not the "left wing", and yes they view it as a competition, like some kind of team sport, where the redneck red-staters are some kind of enemy. Which is why I refuse to participate in partisan politics.
A) The childs fault, for not knowing better
B) Your fault, for being careless
C) The pharmaceutical companies fault, for making the pill in the first place
D) The pharmacys fault, for making the pill bottle openable
E) A & B
F) C & D
The right answer is clearly 'B',
No, the right answer is B & D, if in fact the pill was potentially harmful but not in a child proof bottle.
Personal responsibility is great, as long as it doesn't involve absolving others of their responsibilities in the process. Perfect example:
I missed the bit where they held people down and made them smoke, but it clearly happened at some point.
You missed the bit where nicotine was discovered to be one of the most highly addictive substances, in particular in terms of difficulty of quitting, despite the under-oath testimony of tabacco executives to the contrary?
Did smokers make a mistake they need to take responsibility for when they took up smoking? Absolutely. Did the tobacco executives make criminal mistakes that they need to be held accountable for when they advertised an addictive product, suppressed research regarding it's true effect while creating fake research that claimed it was harmless? Absolutely.
Any sense of "personal responsibility" that requires that only one party can have any responsibility is nonsense.
Any sense of "personal responsibility" that absolves the makers of an addictive product of guilt for lying about the nature of that product for decades is the opposite of responsibility.
Food which not only fed and fueled the cruel brain of the warmonger, but also empowered his soldiers to perform the killing acts! Lord forgive me for my crimes!
In the future, I hope we will all restrict access to food only to those who would use the calories for peaceful purposes. Before you ask, starving people who I consider potentially violent is in fact peaceful.
In other words, nice post.
What an assinine statement. This was well known, by EVERYONE involved, well before the war started.
;-)
Then why didn't our worthless defense secretary actually have a plan for the post-military-ass-kicking part of the invasion?
If he knew that the post-invasion would be this difficult, but did not develop a serious plan, then he is negligent. If he didn't know, he is incompetent and less qualified than you or I to hold his post.
I don't think we've done a bad job in Iraq, though no doubt things could be better. Remember, it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
Monday morning? What about Saturday Afternoon?! Many of the problems we are having were predicted in advance by established members and ex-members of the military and they were ignored by the administration as being biased and politically motivated. Because of course the admin. isn't...
Saturday
Asst. Coach: If you don't change your play book, you're going to lose.
Coach: Everything will be fine. You're only saying that because you don't like me.
Sunday:
[horrible loss]
Monday:
Asst. Coach: You should have changed your play book.
Coach: It's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback!
There is nothing more infuriating than hearing people say that the problems and mistakes in Iraq could not have been known in advance and it's all post-facto criticism, because it means they weren't paying attention in the first place.
BTW, I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out.
If more U.S. soldiers had died "post-war" in Germany than "during-war", this point would be meaningful in the slightest. Clearly, we are not "post-war" in Iraq.
And I hope you realize that much of the criticism of during-war Iraq mirrors criticism of during-war Algiers and Vietnam -- and look how those turned out.
Pr-escr|ptioN gene therapy delvred r|ght t o y0u r door. 3nl4rg you_R worK ethic by four-00 percnt!
It's not the size of your work ethic, it's how you use it!