To be honest, I feel uncomfortable with the way equal opportunity schemes work--I don't think throwing money at this sort of problem can fix it, unless it serves to bolster the number of women in the field, making it more attractive to women in the long run.
I think the core issue is whether or not there is a problem. If women don't want to compete it would be wrong to force them to.
Still, I think the way the numbers stack up point to something statistically significant going on. A few posters have suggested that women are wired differently to men, and programming requires the more 'masculine' traits. We could argue about that point forever and a day, but even if this is the case there have been enough good women programmers to demonstrate that being a woman doesn't necessarily prevent someone from being successful in the field.
But ability or potential doesn't account for the numbers reported in the story. After all, if this was due to mere chance we're looking at a 1 in 2^180 shot here. Even allowing for a 'males tend to be better than females at this stuff' thing 0 in 180 applicants is still a rather large number. Why didn't women apply?
I think the fact that an effort has been made to get women to apply means that someone is concerned that they have missed--for whatever reason--up to half of the potential coders for the project. From their end they're not discriminating against men--they're doubling their pool of workers.
This isn't about the ability to compete. The problem is that females didn't even try to compete.
I find it hard to believe that there are no women who would be able to do this sort of work. There must be other reasons for it. The reactions to this story provide a few clues.
Let's look at the comments so far--how many of them are from opinionated males who seem to like making judgments about the abilities of women to cut it in programming? How many comments have lamented the fact that some fields are dominated by women (last time I looked at applications for nursing scholarships the number of male applicants was > 0%)? How many comments refer to porn, lesbians, cunnilingus and/or dating?
I strongly suspect that the reason women are staying away from this field is the people they find in it. Perhaps if IT were a field where women could find a little respect they may be more likely to apply for positions. And yes boys, if you want to find a date, respecting the object of your affections may be a good place to start!
I could be a little cynical, or I might have spent too much time reading/., but I've always a been a little suspicious of the Australian Copyright Council. I can't remember the details, but about twelve months ago I was reading one of their fact sheets and it seemed to have a few inaccuracies. It certainly seemed to be about protecting rights holders at the expense of telling us what (few) rights we actually possess.
Has anyone else had the feeling they're a little too accomodating to big business?
free of persecution of indigenous australians (unlike the eastern states).
Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of your post, Wikipedia seems to think there might have been a few massacres of indigenous folk West of Cameron's Corner...
Don't get me wrong--I was born in Australia, and I now live in Australia, but I grew up in NZ, and I don't feel particularly loyal to either, at least when it comes to cultural urination matches.
In fact, there's nothing I like to see than the Kiwis giving the Aussies a good belting at cricket, especially at the MCG.
Are you sure? I'll allow you the pavlova, but AFAICT Vegemite was created by C.P. Callister, a scientist trying to figure out how to use discarded yeast from the Carlton & United Brewery. He was employed by the Fred Walker Company, which, until it merged with Kraft, was quite definitely Australian.
Poppycock. There's a lot to Australian culture to be learnt. Until these things are understood people cannot hope to understand the nation in which they want to live. Of course, if they understood it they may not actually want to live here.
For example, our (unofficial) national song is about a suicidal sheep thief. Our defining moment as a nation was a military embarassment (although to be fair the Australian contribution is something to be proud of, and we are.)
We have three national heroes: Phar Lap, Ned Kelly and Breaker Morant. One was a horse, one was a horse thief turned murderer and the third was a horse rider convicted for murder. (Okay, I left out Don Bradman, Clancy of the Overflow and Derryn Hinch. I've got a feeling Don Bradman owned a horse. Clancy was a fictional character and Derryn Hinch might as well have been.)
Our contribution to the world's cuisine is Vegemite, which is produced by a US company.
Thank God we have sport. I'm still proud to be an Aussie!
Clearly not all citizens are so entitled, if only those who are willing to use this all-in-one ID card have access to such benefits.
No, all citizens are entitled to use the Medicare system. They are also entitled to choose not to.
As for your second point, the idea of health care only being available to those who can afford it is quite offensive to the Australian ethos. People don't like paying taxes, but I'm yet to hear anyone seriously complain about paying the Medicare levy. It almost serves as a reminder that it wouldn't take much for anyone to be in a position of needing free treatment.
Besides, everyone (rich and poor alike) uses these services anyway. As I said, all Australians are entitled to subsidised health care. AFAIU health insurers only insure costs over and above your standard Medicare benefit.
Not true. In fact, this won't be any different to the way it is now. Under the current system all Australian citizens have a card which entitles them to free/heavily subsidised medical treatment, and welfare recipients have another card which makes medical bills even cheaper.
People do not have to use these cards if they don't want to, but then they have to find alternative means of funding their treatment.
Other Government services have different types of identification as well. This new card (so we're being told--the details haven't been released yet) will simply roll all the ID schemes into one.
I always make a point of asking lecturers and tutors what books on the 'required list' are really necessary. I'm yet to get bad advice, especially from a tutor who has to teach to pay for his own postgrad studies.
Seriously, if I had any mod points left I'd send some your way on the basis of your subject line alone. That's the sort of thing that only comes to me after I hit 'Submit.'
Hmm. Have you ever tried a google search for "http"? Try it--it's safe. I still can't work out why the top answer is what it is though, especially when none of the other engines--even MSN--return the same result.
Consider that some browsers (well Firefox anyway) will do a Google "I Feel Lucky" search on misspelled URLs. What happens when the first recognisable term is "http"? That's right...
Slashdot Mirror
That's reserved for the dupe.
To be honest, I feel uncomfortable with the way equal opportunity schemes work--I don't think throwing money at this sort of problem can fix it, unless it serves to bolster the number of women in the field, making it more attractive to women in the long run.
I think the core issue is whether or not there is a problem. If women don't want to compete it would be wrong to force them to.
Still, I think the way the numbers stack up point to something statistically significant going on. A few posters have suggested that women are wired differently to men, and programming requires the more 'masculine' traits. We could argue about that point forever and a day, but even if this is the case there have been enough good women programmers to demonstrate that being a woman doesn't necessarily prevent someone from being successful in the field.
But ability or potential doesn't account for the numbers reported in the story. After all, if this was due to mere chance we're looking at a 1 in 2^180 shot here. Even allowing for a 'males tend to be better than females at this stuff' thing 0 in 180 applicants is still a rather large number. Why didn't women apply?
I think the fact that an effort has been made to get women to apply means that someone is concerned that they have missed--for whatever reason--up to half of the potential coders for the project. From their end they're not discriminating against men--they're doubling their pool of workers.
Oops--'lesbian' and 'cunnilingus' were two separate posts. I promise to do better next time...
This isn't about the ability to compete. The problem is that females didn't even try to compete.
I find it hard to believe that there are no women who would be able to do this sort of work. There must be other reasons for it. The reactions to this story provide a few clues.
Let's look at the comments so far--how many of them are from opinionated males who seem to like making judgments about the abilities of women to cut it in programming? How many comments have lamented the fact that some fields are dominated by women (last time I looked at applications for nursing scholarships the number of male applicants was > 0%)? How many comments refer to porn, lesbians, cunnilingus and/or dating?
I strongly suspect that the reason women are staying away from this field is the people they find in it. Perhaps if IT were a field where women could find a little respect they may be more likely to apply for positions. And yes boys, if you want to find a date, respecting the object of your affections may be a good place to start!
Don't do that. I laughed. But then my humour button may be suspect ;-)
I could be a little cynical, or I might have spent too much time reading /., but I've always a been a little suspicious of the Australian Copyright Council. I can't remember the details, but about twelve months ago I was reading one of their fact sheets and it seemed to have a few inaccuracies. It certainly seemed to be about protecting rights holders at the expense of telling us what (few) rights we actually possess.
Has anyone else had the feeling they're a little too accomodating to big business?
Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of your post, Wikipedia seems to think there might have been a few massacres of indigenous folk West of Cameron's Corner...
Call that a joke? THIS is a joke...
I had a giggle reading that, and then I turned on the radio.
I think they were right.
Fair enough. That seems to be a more localised usage of the word then. Or at least, not commonly used in my locality!
/. actually derives from the fishing term. dictd does it again!
Even worse, it seems that the term as applied to so many, erm, provocative posts on
Umm, isn't the word 'trawling?'
Then again, I'd love to mod my employer down...
Don't get me wrong--I was born in Australia, and I now live in Australia, but I grew up in NZ, and I don't feel particularly loyal to either, at least when it comes to cultural urination matches.
In fact, there's nothing I like to see than the Kiwis giving the Aussies a good belting at cricket, especially at the MCG.
Oh, and you can keep Russell Crowe.
Are you sure? I'll allow you the pavlova, but AFAICT Vegemite was created by C.P. Callister, a scientist trying to figure out how to use discarded yeast from the Carlton & United Brewery. He was employed by the Fred Walker Company, which, until it merged with Kraft, was quite definitely Australian.
Poppycock. There's a lot to Australian culture to be learnt. Until these things are understood people cannot hope to understand the nation in which they want to live. Of course, if they understood it they may not actually want to live here.
For example, our (unofficial) national song is about a suicidal sheep thief. Our defining moment as a nation was a military embarassment (although to be fair the Australian contribution is something to be proud of, and we are.)
We have three national heroes: Phar Lap, Ned Kelly and Breaker Morant. One was a horse, one was a horse thief turned murderer and the third was a horse rider convicted for murder. (Okay, I left out Don Bradman, Clancy of the Overflow and Derryn Hinch. I've got a feeling Don Bradman owned a horse. Clancy was a fictional character and Derryn Hinch might as well have been.)
Our contribution to the world's cuisine is Vegemite, which is produced by a US company.
Thank God we have sport. I'm still proud to be an Aussie!
No, all citizens are entitled to use the Medicare system. They are also entitled to choose not to.
As for your second point, the idea of health care only being available to those who can afford it is quite offensive to the Australian ethos. People don't like paying taxes, but I'm yet to hear anyone seriously complain about paying the Medicare levy. It almost serves as a reminder that it wouldn't take much for anyone to be in a position of needing free treatment.
Besides, everyone (rich and poor alike) uses these services anyway. As I said, all Australians are entitled to subsidised health care. AFAIU health insurers only insure costs over and above your standard Medicare benefit.
In Australia all citizens (and more besides) are entitled to medical benefits. And everyone earning anything over minimum wage have to pay for it.
Not true. In fact, this won't be any different to the way it is now. Under the current system all Australian citizens have a card which entitles them to free/heavily subsidised medical treatment, and welfare recipients have another card which makes medical bills even cheaper.
People do not have to use these cards if they don't want to, but then they have to find alternative means of funding their treatment.
Other Government services have different types of identification as well. This new card (so we're being told--the details haven't been released yet) will simply roll all the ID schemes into one.
Mmm.... knucklebones...
Hmm. Looks like they'll have to increase the terms for murder and manslaughter then. We don't want terrorists to start getting ideas...
I always make a point of asking lecturers and tutors what books on the 'required list' are really necessary. I'm yet to get bad advice, especially from a tutor who has to teach to pay for his own postgrad studies.
Seriously, if I had any mod points left I'd send some your way on the basis of your subject line alone. That's the sort of thing that only comes to me after I hit 'Submit.'
I noticed that slashdot.tv has been registered.
Hmm. Think I'll have to watch that rerun of "Who Wants To Marry A Millionnaire." At least tha'll dull the pain...
And saying 'I work for Microsoft' makes you sound smart? I know the rest of your post doesn't.
Then again, it could explain a bit...
Yes, because:
That is all.
Hmm. Have you ever tried a google search for "http"? Try it--it's safe. I still can't work out why the top answer is what it is though, especially when none of the other engines--even MSN--return the same result.
Consider that some browsers (well Firefox anyway) will do a Google "I Feel Lucky" search on misspelled URLs. What happens when the first recognisable term is "http"? That's right...