- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Women Devs Are Hard to Recruit and Even Harder to Keep
|
|
|
Comments (65)
45 earlier comments in the full thread.
>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?
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?
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
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
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?
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?
" 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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
>> 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.]
>> 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.]
> > 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?
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
My psychopathic powers tell me there's a thread fork ahead.
I think Orwell's phrasing was "smelly little orthodoxies."
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
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.