Why do some focus on women?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| nmset Jun 06, 2017 6:17 AM EDT |
We never hear such complaints : Why is it hard to find women on the front line in the battle field? Why is it hard to find women as army General? Why is it hard to find women in the sewrage domain? Why is it hard to find women constructing buildings? ... ... Why do some focus so much on women in IT? |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2017 8:19 AM EDT |
> Why do some focus so much on women in IT? Because it's politically correct. Remember the equivalent focus on getting women into college from several decades back? Well, guess what: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/04/men-women-college-propo... The take away quote? "Although more people than ever are attending college, the ratio of male to female students is nearly 1:2." An inverse ration would be considered a national tragedy and trumpeted from the skies by every main stream media outlet as a disaster in the making that had to be corrected, but since it's men being discriminated against, how much have you heard about it? And yes, by the standards the government uses in every other field, a 2:1 imbalance is considered de facto evidence of discrimination. |
| dotmatrix Jun 06, 2017 9:37 AM EDT |
@jdixon: Agree... and... >Why do some focus so much on women in IT? Because they are afraid to admit they've already won... any sort of actual resistance to women working in IT or STEM ended a long time ago in the USA... and there was real sexism in those fields at one point. One remaining problem may be supporting family needs such as schedules to accommodate daycare and other child rearing realities. Much of that is already written into law via Family Leave Act. The current problem of employment in IT and STEM, in the USA anyway, is that we are importing workers rather than hiring them from the local pool first. This is not a racist statement, as it will likely be taken to be... it's a statement of Sovereignty. The nation's citizens... black, white, grey, green, or purple, or whatever... need to be considered first. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 06, 2017 12:18 PM EDT |
i am running a small company, so i can tell you why: because i want diversity in my team of developers. the more different backgrounds, cultures, ways of thinking i have in my team, the more ideas we can produce to solve problems. in a homogeneous the team, the more everyone tends to think the same, and that means less thinking and less challenging of ideas happens. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_composition for a discussion on the concept. greetings, eMBee. |
| dotmatrix Jun 06, 2017 12:52 PM EDT |
>because i want diversity in my team of developers. This just answers the question: Why would someone hire person B of background or stereotype of P? And that's a fine question to ask. However... All the women I know who are interested in programming all have high paying long term jobs writing code and managing people who write code. Every single one. I personally know of zero adult women, who have a college diploma, who want to be programmers or want to have a career in technology who have a difficult time getting and holding down a decent paying job doing exactly that... And this is a good thing which I have exactly zero problems with... So, is there still an underlying problem? My personal experience tells me ... no. |
| gus3 Jun 06, 2017 12:55 PM EDT |
Unix is the counter-example. It was boot-strapped by a very small, very focused team, with very limited resources, even by the standards of the day. To contrast, read Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-month." A classical example of too many cooks. |
| jdixon Jun 06, 2017 2:15 PM EDT |
> ...because i want diversity in my team of developers. And who exactly is doing anything to prevent you from having that? > ...and there was real sexism in those fields at one point. There still is: At the individual level. At the corporate and cultural level? You're absolutely correct, it doesn't exist. |
| dotmatrix Jun 06, 2017 2:19 PM EDT |
>To contrast, read Fred Brooks' "The Mythical Man-month." This seems to be it: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/greatworks/mythical.pdf yes? Read a few paragraphs - interesting so far. *** A little more... and to the end. Fig 2.4 seems appropriate for government, in my experience... and the common acronym was O.B.E. (overcome by events) |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 07, 2017 12:22 AM EDT |
is this a trick question? if i need a particular skill (say a cobol programmer) and there are none, then i have a problem. and if i want diversity in my team, but there is no diversity because not enough women (for one of the diversity factors) interested in programming, then i have a problem. it's an issue of supply and demand. if there is demand for women in IT, but there are not enough women to supply that demand then that is a problem. the problem is not that women can't find jobs in IT, the problem is that employers can't find enough women to fill their positions, and those they do find don't stay because of some idiots who don't treat women with respect. so how can you say that there is no problem? greetings, eMBee. |
| nmset Jun 07, 2017 3:02 AM EDT |
>the problem is that employers can't find enough women to fill their positions So it's not a segregation problem as the many articles tend to picture. It's just that at its roots, IT is not that attractive to women, just like nursing is not that attractive to men. Then there's no real problem, just tamtam noise from some writers. [ Are they under command from some hidden boss ? That would be a real problem, but another one. ] |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 07, 2017 6:24 AM EDT |
it is a problem if women stay away from IT because of how they are treated by men.
it is a problem if they are discouraged from interest in computer by their parents or teachers. you keep claiming that women do not want to go into IT as if it were some natural inclination. the articles you are referring to are trying to point out that this is not the case. it makes a huge difference if you stay away from a field because you just don't find it interesting, instead of staying away because you don't like to be mistreated by others in that field. the latter is a problem. a serious problem. and it needs to be fixed. and moreover, the need for diversity make this a problem regardless of women liking IT or not. if my company performs better when i have more women in my team, then it is in my interest to find ways to make IT more attractive to women, regardless of why they currently do not like it. i am not trying to push women into IT against their will, but i am trying to change IT so that more women will like to work there because it will improve my company. greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2017 6:24 AM EDT |
> if i need a particular skill (say a cobol programmer) and there are none, then i have a problem. and if i want diversity in my team, but there is no diversity because not enough women (for one of the diversity factors) interested in programming, then i have a problem. Yes your do. But no one else does. Your problem does not obligate any other individual or society in general to fix it. > it's an issue of supply and demand. if there is demand for women in IT, but there are not enough women to supply that demand then that is a problem. Only if the women think there is. If women don't want to be in IT, what right do you have to force them to be there? > ...and those they do find don't stay because of some idiots who don't treat women with respect. There will always be idiots who don't treat others with respect. It happens all the time, to everyone. People are people. That is not a problem which can be fixed. Look, if you want a diverse workforce, then there is an obvious solution. Train them yourself and pay them enough to make them want to stay. If you can't do that, then yes, you have a problem. But no one else does. And if current trends at colleges continue and there are no white male graduates, will you still have a diversity problem, or will that be OK? |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2017 6:43 AM EDT |
> it is a problem if women stay away from IT because of how they are treated by men. Every company I know, most states, and the federal government all have laws and policies against such mistreatment. What else do you want people to do? A mind control device on every man in the world? > it is a problem if they are discouraged from interest in computer by their parents... No, it isn't. The interactions between parents and their children are none of your business. That's one of their responsibilities, and they should be free to do so as they see fit. ... or teachers. They're not. The diversity gospel has been preached at schools since I was there over 40 years ago now. > instead of staying away because you don't like to be mistreated by others in that field. the latter is a problem. a serious problem. and it needs to be fixed. If it existed, yes. It doesn't. Not at a corporate or societal level. It's been illegal for decades. The laws and propaganda have worked. The problem you're complaining about no longer exists. At an individual level you can't change people. There will always be individuals who don't treat others properly. That's life, deal with it. > and moreover, the need for diversity make this a problem regardless of women liking IT or not. No, it's not. Society has no right to force people into a particular field. We have one instance of that, it was called the draft. > if my company performs better when i have more women in my team, then it is in my interest to find ways to make IT more attractive to women, regardless of why they currently do not like it. There is a very simple way to do that. Pay them lots and lots of money. Pay them and they will come. They may only stay until they can comfortably retire, but they will come. This is the same argument companies use when they hire illegal immigrants: "But Americans won't do the work." No, they won't, because you won't pay them enough. I'll do any legal and ethical job you want for $1 million/year (I may not be any good at it, but I'll do it). For $15K/year, probably not. |
| seatex Jun 07, 2017 11:02 AM EDT |
I honestly don't know any tech company turning away qualified women, or mistreating them (due to the possibility of being sued for discrimination), The FAR BIGGER problem currently, in my opinion, is the number of both men and women losing their jobs after training their lower-salaried "guest worker" replacements. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 07, 2017 11:19 AM EDT |
> Your problem does not obligate any other individual or society in general to fix it. i am trying to fix it myself, but you keep telling me not to. > There will always be idiots who don't treat others with respect. That is not a problem which can be fixed. i disagree. this is a fixable problem, through education. people need to learn to be nice to each other, and show respect. this education needs to start in school. what everyone needs to recognize is that we need this kind of education (not only for the sake of women in IT, but for society's sake in general), and that everyone should support it. at the moment, you seem to not support this, and i am trying to change your mind about that. > Train them yourself and pay them enough to make them want to stay. i am already doing the training. i pretty much only work with fresh graduates. but all that effort is for nought when they leave because some idiot thinks he can mistreat them. so i am trying to share my thoughts here to motivate others that more effort is needed. > if current trends at colleges continue and there are no white male graduates, will you still have a diversity problem, or will that be OK? of course not. that would be hypocritical. but that problem is not here yet. i'll address it when it comes. > No, it isn't. The interactions between parents and their children are none of your business. That's one of their responsibilities, and they should be free to do so as they see fit. i am trying to educate people so that they understand that they are doing a disservice to their children by enforcing old gender stereotypes. yes, it is the parents choice to educate their children as they see fit, but that does not mean that i am not allowed to suggest that they take a different perspective. that's the point of education: learn something new. if we are not allowed to educate others then we might as well give up any attempts at betterment of the world altogether. over the past few decades poverty has been reduced globally. do you think that happened by enforcing the status quo? no, it happened by educating people, that they will be better off if certain things are changed. > The diversity gospel has been preached at schools since I was there over 40 years ago now. preaching it, and actually living it so that children are not influenced the wrong way are two different things. you may not have experienced it, but then, if you are not a woman and you may just not have noticed. it's very subtle. the reality is, that there are still stories of discouragement, so you may believe the discrimination is gone, but it really isn't. maybe you got lucky and went to a school with really enlightened teachers. i do know that these teachers exist, so that's not unrealistic. but there is plenty of evidence out there that shows the discrimination is still real. > Society has no right to force people into a particular field. you didn't read what i said: i am not forcing anyone into IT, but i want to make IT interesting for women so that they get motivated choose it on their own. > Pay them and they will come. not as long as they have to endure mistreatment by the other gender. no amount of money can make up for that. greetings, eMBee. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 07, 2017 11:26 AM EDT |
@seatex: that H1B problem is specific to the US. the gender problem is global. to a different degree in different countries, but it is global. as for the H1B problem, i believe the solution is simple: require that they be paid the top salaries in their field. greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2017 12:09 PM EDT |
> The FAR BIGGER problem currently, in my opinion, is the number of both men and women losing their jobs after training their lower-salaried "guest worker" replacements. Agreed, but mbaehrlxer points in that regard are valid. > i am trying to fix it myself, but you keep telling me not to. I just told you how to fix it. :) > but all that effort is for nought when they leave because some idiot thinks he can mistreat them. Who exactly is mistreating them? If it's your other employees, that's something you have control over. > of course not. that would be hypocritical. but that problem is not here yet. i'll address it when it comes. Good enough. I really didn't expect anything else from you, of course. I wish I could say the same for those outside this community. > but that does not mean that i am not allowed to suggest that they take a different perspective. You can suggest all you like. They're still free to ignore you. And if your suggestions get too insistent, there are other avenues they might pursue to make their displeasure with your interference in their family life known. :) > preaching it, and actually living it so that children are not influenced the wrong way are two different things. you may not have experienced it, but then, if you are not a woman and you may just not have noticed. No, I never experienced it. But then my wife agrees that she never experienced it either. Two different people from two very different environments in two different geographical regions. I don't presume it never happened or never happens. But it's not an endemic problem. > but i want to make IT interesting for women so that they get motivated choose it on their own. And how do you propose to do that when they've made it clear by their decisions over the years that they simply don't agree that it's interesting? We've tried removing obstacles. We've tried additional incentives. We've tried special programs. We've made discrimination against the law and mistreatment a fireable offense. At a certain point we may have to simply accept that women as a class don't like IT as much as men do. It wouldn't be the first time the sexes have been shown to be different. > not as long as they have to endure mistreatment by the other gender. no amount of money can make up for that. You seriously underestimate the incentive power of money. :) Now, once you have enough money, that changes, but only a relatively small percentage of the population has enough money. |
| skelband Jun 07, 2017 12:51 PM EDT |
> but i want to make IT interesting for women so that they get motivated choose it on their own. What a weird thing to say. IT is already awesome. Why would you need to make it *more* interesting? What are you proposing? Pink computers? That's pretty patronising. |
| jdixon Jun 07, 2017 1:15 PM EDT |
> Pink computers? It's been done. Several times. |
| dotmatrix Jun 07, 2017 4:11 PM EDT |
>What are you proposing? Pink computers? That's pretty patronising. If I were woman, I think I would find the whole idea that "There needs to be more women in IT and STEM because society needs to be represented more evenly..." patronizing. It removes a significant portion of individuality. |
| theBeez Jun 15, 2017 11:33 AM EDT |
There is no diversity problem. Strangely enough, people who promote diversity center the issue around one single chromosome and six genes. Given the +/- 4 Ggenes we have, I'd say its a rather limited view of "diversity" - and so does nature. Team diversity means most of all different attitudes, characters and skills. Not +/- 3% of the gene material. And we haven't even put "nurture vs. nature" into action. And the IT sector is already heavily diverse (in the meaning of those SJW). Asians (or "those with Asian backgrounds" if you prefer) are heavily overrepresented in IT. And why? Because they're GOOD - or does that sound racist if I put it like that? No, women are much better in IT than men (gee, that sounds liberal huh? - and that out of my mouth!). Sorry, men are much better. (now I sound sexist - just by changing the sex I praise). Women in IT are just heavily headhunted to fullfill diversity quota (ask any head hunter). All in all, I'm a white male and I probably should be killed off anyway. |
| seatex Jun 15, 2017 2:22 PM EDT |
"All in all, I'm a white male and I probably should be killed off anyway." Don't agree with them. That is their plan, at least for those men who won't be feminized. But they've definitely already feminized most males in the Millennial generation. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 15, 2017 10:36 PM EDT |
it is not the genes that make the diversity, that could be considered racist. it's the background, culture and upbringing. most women do act and think differently than men, and it is that difference that creates the diversity. a women that has learned to act and think identically to her male peers does not add anything to the teams diversity just because of her gender. i am not ruling out that genes do have any effect, but we don't know if that is the case. it certainly isn't when it comes to race. greetings, eMBee. |
| theBeez Jun 16, 2017 1:53 AM EDT |
"it is not the genes that make the diversity, that could be considered racist". Where do you think femininity finds it's origin? Don't you think it comes from a GENETIC X-X combination, huh? Or do you attribute a vagina to "background, upbringing and culture"? Note that "diversity" in SJW terminology usually includes "ethnic diversity" as well (so, I follow that definition - not your feminist agenda). That's the beauty of current feminism, it has become a totally incoherent narrative of assorted "likes and dislikes" with a complete disregard of scientific and philosophical scrutiny. E.g. you gracefully allow people to bring up their offspring as they like, but then reject the consequential outcome. It's like allowing your children to paint the walls of your house and then get upset when your wallpaper is soiled. You attribute the lack of females in IT to "white males" although that connection has never been consistently proven - for the simple reason that (a) very few women start an IT business on their own (which you do see in media and legal) and (b) although the majority of FOSS projects are one-man shows, there are still only 3% one-women shows. And of course see the incredible success of "outreach" programs, which do little more than drain the finances of important FOSS projects to the point of collapse once you give SJWs the lead (Gnome). |
| jdixon Jun 16, 2017 8:10 AM EDT |
> it is not the genes that make the diversity, that could be considered racist. It not only could be, it is. But that doesn't change the facts. Genes are the primary component of "diversity". Reality doesn't care what people consider racist and what they don't. > it's the background, culture and upbringing. They play a role, but it's a secondary one. Nature sets the template. Nurture determines how it's filled out. |
| skelband Jun 16, 2017 1:31 PM EDT |
It is an interesting point that one of the advantages often touted for getting women into IT is that they bring a different perspective which is often useful. I won't deny the logic of that. However, it is rarely considered whether or not that different outlook might lead them to prefer different careers in general though and the evidence seems to overwhelmingly support that. |
| theBeez Jun 16, 2017 2:23 PM EDT |
"Often touted" doesn't mean it's true. Repetition has AFAIK very little influence on reality. I have known lots of people who gave me a new insight. Some were women, some were men. Would be a great subject for some quantitative research once we get the definitions and methodology right, though. And let at the same time take into account that tall people are more inspiring than small ones. Or fat people are more fun in the workplace than thin ones. Did you know that people who eat meat are often jerks? |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 17, 2017 12:58 PM EDT |
here is some research: research papers: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228196582_The_Role_... articles with links to research papers: http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-gender-diversity-performan... http://99u.com/articles/16850/everything-youve-ever-wanted-t... https://blog.soprasteria.co.uk/2015/05/27/mixed-gender-teams... https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/12/18/are-you-m... https://www.inc.com/adam-vaccaro/diversity-and-performance.h... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/three-reasons-to-create-diverse-... https://women2.com/stories/2014/05/21/smartest-financial-dec... https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/12/22/why-gender... articles about research without links: http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/why_diversity_matters_c... http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/5769-gender-balanced-teams-... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak... https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/diverse-backgrounds-pe... https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-te... opinion pieces: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-mult... greetings, eMBee. |
| theBeez Jun 18, 2017 4:19 AM EDT |
If you think such a plethora of links impresses me, no it doesn't. First of all, most of these papers don't seem to know the difference between "significance" and "universal applicability". That is, a result within a group of a few hundred people may be significant - for laymen that is "cannot be explained away by coincidence", but that doesn't mean it is valid for other groups. In order to do that you need thousands and thousands of testsubjects - then you obtain results within a +/- 5% margin with a certainty of 95% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance). It may come of no surprise that a recent study has shown that especially in the social and medical sciences there is an alarming lack of reproducibility. Also the test methodology can be questioned. One study "proved" that "diversity teams" made "better decisions". When drilled down to what that "better business decisions" meant it was shown that it resembled a puzzle from a newspaper. Not quite the same, is it.. This problem was also noted in a research paper of the US military where several studies were evaluated that differed from "no effect", via "may be there is something there" to "yes, it works"! The study of Forbes lacked a followup, that is the search for a hidden variable. Maybe those "diversity teams" were overly represented in certain areas or categories of enterprises that did well anyway. But why should they? It has been shown that most people working in the social sciences are liberal. It was even acknowledged that that lack of diversity carried the problem of a massive bias in the field. This bias led to a scandal in the Dutch field of social sciences, well known for its research papers with titles like "Non-vegetarians are jerks", where researchers FAKED the basic data in order to obtain the results they politically found desirable. They were trapped by statisticians who probed their raw test results. So in short, that you can produce such a lengthy list of links isn't surprising. But hold each one of 'em to the light and you'll see they can and should be questioned. Such are valid questions and part of the scientific process. And don't list opinions - opinions are like noses. Everyone has one. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 18, 2017 11:31 AM EDT |
please go ahead and read every study to verify that it is indeed not valid. see, the problem i have here, is that you are making a claim that not backed by ANY study, not even an invalid one. at least i have not seen any study with results that contradict any of the findings above. you may go ahead and discount any study made, and i am sure, if you look deep enough, you can find flaws everywhere. but in the absence of counter studies, doing so is rather convenient, don't you think? if the results are really random, and if mixed teams are really not better, then, given the low opinion if women among a number of men, the lack of counter studies is rather surprising. greetings, eMBee. |
| dotmatrix Jun 18, 2017 11:44 AM EDT |
theBeez wrote:So in short, that you can produce such a lengthy list of links isn't surprising. But hold each one of 'em to the light and you'll see they can and should be questioned. Such are valid questions and part of the scientific process. And don't list opinions - opinions are like noses. Everyone has one. This. In spades. Always. What is most missing from many areas of public discourse is the reasoned and reasonable questioning of authority with cogent and probing inquiries... |
| theBeez Jun 18, 2017 1:26 PM EDT |
Try: (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007) (Jehn, Chatwick, & Thatcher, 1997) (Alagna, Reddy, & Collins, 1982) (Clement & Schiereck, 1973) (Holahan, 1979) (Pelled, 1996) (Sackett, DuBois, & Noe, 1991) (Bower and colleagues, 2000) No, not everything is conveniently on the Internet. Most academic papers aren't, BTW. Anyway, have fun wit it. I've concluded several years ago that I have better things to do than spend hours researching and blogging on the Internet for people who are so saturated in their ideology that they've essentially stopped to think rationally. |
| nmset Jun 18, 2017 2:33 PM EDT |
French national assembly has just chosen 47% female representatives on purpose. A terrible mistake. Not because of the proportion, but because it's not a choice based on merit and competence. Political parties wanted such a proportion at start, it's a deliberate choice, not a reasoning, how can a country's fate be decided on balls or nips ? (It's not related to IT, sorry, just a hot subject here.) |
| seatex Jun 18, 2017 5:50 PM EDT |
Q: What's the longest battle in human history? A: The Battle of the Sexes. And it will never end... |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 18, 2017 8:00 PM EDT |
theBeez: thank you, i'll check those out. for stuff not being in the internet, well, i'd consider that criminal negligence nowadays. research needs to be public and easily accessible. any kind of paywall ought to be outlawed. nmset: we probably ought not to discuss that at length, because it would get us into off-topic areas, but thanks for bringing it up. i agree, choosing representatives should be done by qualification, not by gender (the same goes for IT employees, which is why i am looking to increase the quality of the employees). however given the "quality" of politicians over all, i suspect that putting "unqualified" people into political positions will increase the overall quality, not reduce it, so we won't be able to judge the outcome on its merit. that is, we won't know if it is the gender or the quality of the people chosen, that made the difference here. (apologies for making a statement about politics here, i won't continue this topic) greetings, eMBee. |
| dotmatrix Jun 18, 2017 8:26 PM EDT |
>research needs to be public and easily accessible. any kind of paywall ought to be outlawed. 99% of science research is paywalled. It makes life really expensive. |
| theBeez Jun 19, 2017 1:48 AM EDT |
What research papers are concerned, I can only agree with you there. Aaron Swartz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR) died for that - and that was a little too close for comfort. I tend to go through quite some mathematical papers, just to see if there are new methods which can be used (e.g. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Gamma_function#Forth). Most of 'em I can discard - too difficult, too abstract - so if I have to pay even a small amount for that, it becomes too costly (up to $20 per paper). IMHO, it is a loss to us all. |
| mbaehrlxer Jun 19, 2017 12:32 PM EDT |
wow, i had no idea. when the drama around aaron swartz happened, i sympathized, and thought he didn't deserve the treatment he got, that let to his suicide, but didn't realize how severe the problem really is that he was trying to solve. i guess, one does not think about that, until they are affected by it themselves. this topic is now dead, simply because i can't afford to spend that kind of money in order to read the papers that provide the research about it. greetings, eMBee. |
| hkwint Jul 01, 2017 5:26 PM EDT |
> At a certain point we may have to simply accept that women as a class don't like IT as much as men do. It wouldn't be the first time the sexes have been shown to be different.At a certain point we may have to simply accept that women as a class don't like IT as much as men do. It wouldn't be the first time the sexes have been shown to be different. Should read: "At a certain point we may have to simply accept that women as a class don't like THE CULTURE AROUND 'IT' as much as men do..." That very culture being developed mostly by, well, mostly men of course. The first programmer, a woman. The first to make an electronic compiler, a woman. The one who made the predecessor of COBOL, a woman. Several decades ago, 40% of students 'computer science', woman (1). Today (!), 40% of students 'computer science' in Mexico, women (2). Are their X-X genes different? Is that what caused todays inbalance and what we have to accept? Of course not, it's simply the culture they don't like. The culture is different per country, and changes over the decades. The reason why India almost doesn't win any gold medal at the olympics? Because their parents tell them it's an unsure path to become a sporter, better become a programmer and have a contract. That's why Asian's are overrepresented in IT, not because they're good, or better than any other nation whatsoever. If in the US parents would tell their children to do IT instead of "some 'sport scholarship for university football, Lacrosse or what have you", the US may actually have the same number of good programmers (divided by four or so to make up for population difference). I've been reading a technical weekly newspaper which does a survey amongst engineers every year, and every year, it turns out, the 'atmosphere' at a department at a company is deemed more important than salary (3). Then, of course, my country is not the US, where people are more known to accept crappy jobs as long as it pays (uhuh, and we're following them in that direction). Leading to the 2nd point: > There will always be idiots who don't treat others with respect. That is not a problem which can be fixed. Some companies have more of those idiots than others (4), and the problem is easily fixed by firing the idiots. And maybe putting them on a name-and-shame list 'on the webz' while at it, so the next company who hires them can't plausibly deny they didn't know in advance they hired another moron. (1) http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/10/06/345... (2) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/th... (3) https://www.technischweekblad.nl/achtergrond/tw-salarisonder... (4) https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/2/19/reflecting-on-on... |
| dotmatrix Jul 01, 2017 6:00 PM EDT |
OK here goes: https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/BETA-report-going-blind-to-see-more%20clearly.pdf There is no systemic bias against women in hiring practices. Although, it has been confirmed that there is a systemic bias against hiring white males. |
| hkwint Jul 01, 2017 6:20 PM EDT |
That's for 'higher salary' jobs. Other studies show the opposite: https://izajoels.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-9012... http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2012/04/23/anonymous-job-... |
| dotmatrix Jul 01, 2017 7:01 PM EDT |
>That's for 'higher salary' jobs. Always a reason to try to discount the clear and easy problem identification. The problem is that child rearing is statistically going to be performed by women. These women are statistically going to choose to either be away from regular employment altogether or require a lower position within an organization that will allow for flexible schedules around child rearing. It's important to note that non-female persons may also be assuming the primary parental role... and so, the problem of discontinuous or career-lite employment lowering future employment chances is not specifically a female vs. male problem. There is no sexist bias against hiring women... it a hiring bias against certain types and forms of employment which... through biological norms... affects mostly females. This is a very different problem and analysis of solutions than the current, and incorrect, model. |
| dotmatrix Jul 01, 2017 7:32 PM EDT |
@hkwint: BTW: Your linked studies show the same effect... that gender-blind, minority-blind hiring does not yield a more diverse group. Annabelle Krause, Ulf Rinne and Klaus F Zimmermann wrote:However, some results point into the direction that anonymity prevents employers from favoring minority applicants when credentials are equal—at least in the initial stage of the hiring process.... This goal relies on the assumption that discrimination is present in the initial situation, and that it is based on characteristics which are not included in anonymous job applications. If you look at Table 6 of the "Krause" study you will note that women as a statistical quantity were at a disadvantage in the initial stage of hiring. This stage eliminates the weakest candidates... and women were disproportionately listed as "weaker" candidates. I contend that this is due mostly to resume gaps because of career choices due to child rearing. The rest of the hiring process is as expected. That the "best" narrowed candidate gets hired. This "best" candidate is more likely to be female because of the initial "weeding out" process of weaker resumes. The females in the work force who have worked hard not to have "strong" resumes are very likely to be good hires. If you note my analysis... the conclusion is not that women are discriminated against in hiring because of being a woman. It is rather the employment choices that are taken due to child rearing. And this is a very different problem than "Sexist because of Reasons" |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2017 7:39 PM EDT |
> ...and the problem is easily fixed by firing the idiots. There are always more idiots. And of course some religions are more tolerant of women in the workplace than others. Are you going to discriminate on the basis of religion? > There is no systemic bias against women in hiring practices. In fact, the inverse at this point, at least in Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-tria... |
| dotmatrix Jul 01, 2017 7:42 PM EDT |
>In fact, the inverse at this point, at least in Australia: That's an article about the study I linked earlier. And, yes, it does indeed show that rather than bias against women and minorities... there is bias against white males. Of course, that narrative is very difficult for people still fighting the war that has already been won. |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2017 9:54 AM EDT |
White males are discriminated, I agree, and it sucks. However, note that those idiots who fooled up the atmosphere starting from the 80's and caused the problems and later the 'positive discrimination' reaction, where in majority white males. Some white male idiots fooled up and caused problems, it was not dealt with for far too long, other people did nothing, women left amd even more idiots were hired. Situation (culture!) got out of hand, measures taken to fix ot and now all white males pay the price. Not much to do with women not liking IT, just a rotten culture at some places with idiots ruling those places and not fixing it. |
| dotmatrix Jul 02, 2017 10:46 AM EDT |
>White males are discriminated, I agree, and it sucks. However, note that those idiots who fooled up... Spite is not a social good. It does not make for good morale in the workplace. Shouldn't society and, specifically, the tech world, try to increase both morale as well as more humane work place environments rather than seek to enable spitefulness and divisiveness? |
| skelband Jul 04, 2017 1:26 PM EDT |
I think that a large part of the problem in the discussion of whether or not there is widespread sexism in IT is the visualisation of what that world would look like. Particularly for @hkwint above, what would we expect to see if the "fight" was won? In order to determine whether or not the problem still exists in any meaningful way, you need to develop some kind of robust measure. Firstly, in any human endeavour, you will *never, ever* see a world without any discrimination. Humans categorise people, it is an innate property of the way we think. Mis-firings of that mechanism leads to inappropriate and unreasonable categorisation. Where humans are involved, it will happen. What feminists in the past fought against was rampant, cultural partitioning based on gender. The Second World War saw the end of most of that in the western world. The history of female emancipation leading from that is fairly well documented. Since we will always see isolated instances of sexist attitudes, any individual's anecdotal experience is irrelevant to the discussion. If you think that the war against sexism is a zero-sum game, you will be banging your head against a brick wall. It's not going to happen, ever. Deal with it. Secondly, as others have commented, equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity. You cannot measure one by the other because all other things are *not* equal. That we are still debating this issue 40 years after high quality studies have blown the discrimination accusation out of the water just blows my mind. And remember, your personal mileage might vary. If you need to see why and have not watched the interviews with Thomas Sowell on YouTube, please do it now and let's put the question to bed and move onto more interesting things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxygmc_SMAU |
| theBeez Jul 04, 2017 5:03 PM EDT |
What amazes me is that nobody counters the myth that hkwint so off-handedly repeats that females don't do development because of the "toxic environment". Let me make it absolutely clear that all "evidence" in this direction is either anecdotical or badly conducted. There was never any serious research into any hidden variables. All the data accumulated was based on interviews - but between what people SAY and what IS, is a big abyss. If we SAY exactly what we DO, we'd all be having sex three times a week on average - no one wants to admit what really goes on in his own bedroom. And if we fail an interview it's never our own fault. If you're a woman, it's easy to say "you were discriminated". And that may very well be the myth of the "toxic environment". Take the case of Sarah Sharp. After a while it came out "The first person to start dropping f-bombs on other people is none other than Sarah Sharp. Who is using the uncivil and threatening language exactly?" Yeah, if you're in trouble victimizing yourself is an easy defense. Nice to list "all the women" who were pivotal in computer science - if you got it right. The first compiler was made by Konrad Zuse. And we all know Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper. However, if you put it into perspective, the male accomplishments are far, far greater. The reason that computer operators were mainly women is that it was considered an ADMINISTRATIVE JOB. Quote: "Bartik told a live audience at the Computer History Museum in 2008 that the job lacked prestige." And there was no great need for the thousands and thousands of programmers we need nowadays. The same goes for other percentages - without the actual numbers involved, percentages don't tell a whole lot. Without explanations for this discrepancy, even less. Are XX genes different? Yes, very much so. I don't see many female Ninja Warriors on television. Simply because they have (on average) 50% less upper body strength and 70% of the lower body strength of a male. When they go out, it's almost always in a part of the game that requires a lot of upper body strength. And that brings us back to anecdotal evidence. Yes, men are taller than women, but you may find a woman that is taller than another man. You cannot (pre)judge people on merely average capacities. There are female programmers I absolutely admire - simply because they write awesome code. However, that does not mean that this "discrepancy" between female and male programmers is caused by the majority of male programmers. Nor does it mean that we should "strive" for equality in percentages. Over 90% of the dangerous professions are fulfilled by men. Never heard of a feminist who claimed 50% of professional deaths should be women. Or should equality only be reached in "fun" jobs? |
| hkwint Jul 16, 2017 8:16 AM EDT |
" nobody counters the myth that hkwint so off-handedly repeats that females don't do development because of the "toxic environment". --> The problem is all you do is talk _about_ women, instead of with them or reading what they write. Because that's all we do in this forum. Denying the problem with rethoric nonsense and asking academic research is more convenient than believing actual women who tell they left because of said toxic environment, I get it. Would you send your daughter (if you had one) to Uber to be harassed and feel miserable? Is lack of academic evidence or yada yada about feminism, chromosomes and dangerous jobs of influence to such a decision? Hell no, nobody cares about such drivel. What matter is how work makes you feel, the atmosphere, academic evidence or not. That's why women in NL don't choose certain companies or studies. |
| dotmatrix Jul 16, 2017 8:47 AM EDT |
hkwint wrote:What matter is how work makes you feel, the atmosphere, academic evidence or not. That's why women in NL don't choose certain companies or studies. This statement is the problem. It conflates an individual choice, an individual situation, with a statistical choice of a particular group. Such an argument is invalid. Respect the individual, and the rest will take of its self. |
| jdixon Jul 16, 2017 8:58 AM EDT |
> Denying the problem with rethoric nonsense How would you like me to deny the problem? What would it take to convince you that the problem at a societal level (at least in the US) simply doesn't exist? > ..is more convenient than believing actual women who tell they left because of said toxic environment... Since the majority of women I've encountered who make these types of claims are confirmed liars, yes. > Would you send your daughter (if you had one) to Uber to be harassed and feel miserable? If I had a daughter I wouldn't "send" her anywhere. She'd make her own decisions. > What matter is how work makes you feel, the atmosphere, academic evidence or not. Do I really need to point out that the vast majority of people (including women) would, if they had the option, not choose to work at all? |
| dotmatrix Jul 16, 2017 9:11 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:vast majority of people... if they had the option, not choose to work at all? This one needs a whole new thread... and covers things like: "Why do people invent things - for money or natural creative outlet or (non-monetary) competition with a peer group?" My guess is that a large number of people would choose not to work, but there are probably nearly the same number who desire work... meaning generating and sharing creative works or simply the joy of physical labor. |
| jdixon Jul 16, 2017 10:32 AM EDT |
> but there are probably nearly the same number who desire work. There is a considerable difference between doing something at your own place, on your own schedule, for your own benefit; and commuting to a workplace on another person's schedule to do what they want you to do. hkwint's comment seemed to concern the latter. |
| hkwint Jul 17, 2017 7:46 AM EDT |
> What would it take to convince you that the problem at a societal level (at least in the US) simply doesn't exist? What would it taken tot convince you it _does_ exist? There's no statistical academic research showing women in India don't take the bus because of the toxic environment, shall we deny the problem? Because the problem is caused 100% by people with an Y chromosome, if we deny it is a societal problem then we just blame it on the Y chromosome? That's just plain insulting, it means no man can behave. Some women don't take the bus in india, some don't want to work in IT. Want to blame it on the XX chromosomes (rapists in India blame the women and deny the societal problem), go ahead block your ears stick your head in the sand while singing LALALALALA. |
| jdixon Jul 17, 2017 11:28 AM EDT |
> in India I can't speak for India, and frankly I don't care. I don't live in India, I don't work in India, and I'm not an Indian. They have to deal with their own problems. That's why I added (at least in the US) in my comment. > What would it taken tot convince you it _does_ exist? More than anecdotal stories, many from demonstrated liars and all with a political agenda to push. But in point of fact the studies have been done. In the US, at the societal and business level, the problem doesn't exist. There are individuals who experience problems, but they're dealt with through the systems that have been put into place to deal with them. The institutionalized discrimination is no longer present. It's been dealt with. In fact, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. Some would say too far in the other direction. The institutional roadblocks have been removed. All that's left is people making their individual decisions about what they want to do. You don't like the results of those decisions? Fine, convince them that they're wrong. But don't be surprised if they don't take and/or don't appreciate your advice. |
| theBeez Jul 17, 2017 12:48 PM EDT |
>> The problem is all you do is talk _about_ women, instead of with them or reading what they write.
[Hmm, I wrote a whole blog on women in IT and what they wrote. It was an answer to a certain female editor here who claimed that anecdotal evidence was leading. Well, two can write anecdotes. I had a lot of fun when I saw it pop up in some feminist forums, though.] >> Because that's all we do in this forum. Denying the problem with rethoric nonsense and asking academic research is more convenient than believing actual women who tell they left because of said toxic environment, I get it. [Yes, we all believed Sarah Sharp. Never take the word of people who failed for granted.] >> Would you send your daughter (if you had one) to Uber to be harassed and feel miserable? [Life isn't a walk in the park. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. We're not here to make the world a playground for naive women. I expect her to take care of herself. That was how I was raised.] >> Is lack of academic evidence or yada yada about feminism, chromosomes and dangerous jobs of influence to such a decision? Hell no, nobody cares about such drivel. [No, common sense is. Every one should be able to take care of themselves. You think my career was paved on flowerbeds and yellow bricks roads? Hell, no. But I always took the advise of my father to heart: "Either you change or the environment changes or you change of environment". Why should womens experiences be any different? Because they're feeble? You don't believe that yourself, do you?] >> What matter is how work makes you feel, the atmosphere, academic evidence or not. That's why women in NL don't choose certain companies or studies. [No data, no argument.] |
| skelband Jul 17, 2017 2:12 PM EDT |
> > What would it take to convince you that the problem at a societal level (at least in the US) simply doesn't exist?
> What would it taken tot convince you it _does_ exist? Those are not the only two options. If you don't have evidence of systemic sexism, the alternative is not that it isn't so. The logical alternative is that we just don't know. Random anecdotes are not any kind of substitute for real research. Human beings are really, really bad at determining the truth of anything larger than their own personal space. That's why we have statistics and science. Anything else is demonstrably bad at getting at the truth. You know I'm really suspicious whenever anyone tries to justify their position with any variant of "Well everyone knows" or "It's obvious", or "I have a few friends that tell me that it's so". If such a phenomenon was *so* pervasive, there would be hundreds of high-quality academic studies showing the truth of it. There are a number of very high quality studies showing the reverse. But then we all know that if anyone tried to prove the existence of systemic sexism in our society, it would be suppressed by the white, male patriarchy wouldn't it? |
| jdixon Jul 17, 2017 3:12 PM EDT |
> The logical alternative is that we just don't know. Correct. > Random anecdotes are not any kind of substitute for real research. Again, correct. Sometimes they're the best you have, but that's not the case here. > There are a number of very high quality studies showing the reverse. Exactly. > But then we all know that if anyone tried to prove the existence of systemic sexism in our society, it would be suppressed by the white, male patriarchy wouldn't it? Since science itself is now considered sexist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-s...) and racist (http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/14/watch-leftist-students-say...), of course. |
| skelband Jul 17, 2017 4:56 PM EDT |
What occurs to me is that it is really difficult to argue against an idea that has been so normalised in western society that to offer a contrary view, even with overwhelming evidence to back it up, is discarded out of hand. It is one of the reasons that atheists have such a hard time of it in a substantially religious context. I just wish I could persuade more people to adopt the more Socratic approach to what they believe. There are some things that you really need to just take on faith to live a sane life. However, anything that has the smack of religion should immediately raise warning flags with people, not necessarily to disbelieve it, but to at least demand reasonable justification. Too many people these days are quite happy to believe any old dogmatic rubbish, coupled with the desire to receive validation from others. It's a destructive situation. |
| nmset Jul 18, 2017 8:25 AM EDT |
>any old dogmatic rubbish Bah, all the noise about total equality between sexes is just NEW dogmatic rubbish, that too many people these days are quite happy to believe. But let not the discussion drift on other themes. |
| mbaehrlxer Jul 18, 2017 12:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, anything that has the smack of religion should immediately raise warning flags with people, not necessarily to disbelieve it, but to at least demand reasonable justification. everyone must set aside superstitious beliefs, traditions and blind imitation of ancestral forms in religion and investigate reality for himself. greetings, eMBee. |
| skelband Jul 18, 2017 12:25 PM EDT |
Ah yes, sorry. I wasn't intending to change the subject. I use the term "religious" in the more general sense as in the belief of a dogma without justification. |
| dotmatrix Jul 18, 2017 3:03 PM EDT |
My psychopathic powers tell me there's a thread fork ahead. |
| gus3 Jul 18, 2017 5:20 PM EDT |
I think Orwell's phrasing was "smelly little orthodoxies." |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!