- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Training Girls Away From Technical Careers
|
|
|
Comments (68)
48 earlier comments in the full thread.
I don't see them posting, even though you claim there's no reason not to, do you? Perhaps there are reasons and lxer just isn't worth the hassle, as attempting to address them in an online environment can get all #gamergate very quickly.
> I don't see them posting, even though you claim there's no reason not to, do you?
No one keeping them from does not equate to no reason.
No one keeping them from does not equate to no reason.
@cybertao
>> Perhaps there are reasons and lxer just isn't worth the hassle.
Conjecture. Perhaps it's something else. Without any supporting evidence any hypothesis is as valid as another. Even WITH supporting evidence - as long as there is another hypothesis possible that explains the phenomena as well as the supported one.
Conjecture? Yes, a more generalised one than posting on lxer not being worth the hassle because they are busy having babies or pushing a feminist agenda without doing hard graft.
> ...because they are busy having babies
You say that as if you think it's derogatory. Having and raising children is one of our highest callings, and far more important in the long run than posting on LXer.
You say that as if you think it's derogatory. Having and raising children is one of our highest callings, and far more important in the long run than posting on LXer.
I sometimes forget that sarcasm doesn't always translate well in written dialogue. The act of birth and child-rearing wasn't derogatory, the notion women are to preoccupied with it as suggested earlier was - some of the responses in this thread demonstrate there are issues to be addressed within this institution.
The fact I had to explain that leads me to think the problem is more endemic than I first thought. It's an issue to discuss, not explain away.
The fact I had to explain that leads me to think the problem is more endemic than I first thought. It's an issue to discuss, not explain away.
> ... the notion women are to preoccupied with it as suggested earlier was ...
I'm not sure why you think it would be. Most married couples I've known tend to pretty much disappear from any non-essential activities for a year or two after a newborn arrives. It's a very time consuming and rather exhausting endeavor.
> It's an issue to discuss, not explain away.
Seems like that's what folks have been doing.
I'm not sure why you think it would be. Most married couples I've known tend to pretty much disappear from any non-essential activities for a year or two after a newborn arrives. It's a very time consuming and rather exhausting endeavor.
> It's an issue to discuss, not explain away.
Seems like that's what folks have been doing.
@cybertao - "A more generalised one than posting on lxer not being worth the hassle they are busy having babies or pushing a feminist agenda without doing hard graft".
(a) Me missing a beat doesn't mean you're free to make the same error. (b) You're talking with a biologist over here. I know of no mammals where care for the offspring is predominantly done by the male. Right of my head, I know of fishes and birds (seahorses and pinguins). So, it's not an indefensible generalized proposition a priori.
There is a higher percentage of men raising their children than there are women participating here. 'Because biology' is totally unreasonable, and the excuse used in societies that subjugate women.
Male penguins care for and hatch their partner's eggs. :P
Male penguins care for and hatch their partner's eggs. :P
@cybertao - "'Because biology' is totally unreasonable". Opinion, unproven.
> There is a higher percentage of men raising their children than there are women participating here.
Properly raising children takes both parents, not just one. It's far to much work for just one person to handle. Yes, their are individuals who do. That's almost never by choice.
> 'Because biology' is totally unreasonable, and the excuse used in societies that subjugate women.
The last I checked, the Angloshphere wasn't such a society.
> Male penguins care for and hatch their partner's eggs. :P
As the Beez already noted, penguins are not mammals. Yes, there are families where, for one reason or another, the one who stays home with the child(ren) is the male, but that's not the usual case. The historical reason for that is rather obvious: The female is the one who produces milk.
Properly raising children takes both parents, not just one. It's far to much work for just one person to handle. Yes, their are individuals who do. That's almost never by choice.
> 'Because biology' is totally unreasonable, and the excuse used in societies that subjugate women.
The last I checked, the Angloshphere wasn't such a society.
> Male penguins care for and hatch their partner's eggs. :P
As the Beez already noted, penguins are not mammals. Yes, there are families where, for one reason or another, the one who stays home with the child(ren) is the male, but that's not the usual case. The historical reason for that is rather obvious: The female is the one who produces milk.
The goddess of technology was Aphena, because it was used for women's work. Not that long ago, typing was women's work. Pasty males sitting inside typing demonstrate that working in tech is not exactly a masculine activity by traditional social perceptions - they are just inferior women who can't menstrate and produce milk.
See what I did there?
See what I did there?
> See what I did there?
Yes. It's called a strawman.
You know, just because someone points out obvious facts which contradict your arguments, it doesn't mean they're opposed to the position you claim to support. It means your arguments aren't convincing. In your case, they're actually counterproductive.
Yes. It's called a strawman.
You know, just because someone points out obvious facts which contradict your arguments, it doesn't mean they're opposed to the position you claim to support. It means your arguments aren't convincing. In your case, they're actually counterproductive.
@cybertao:
> Not that long ago, typing was women's work.
Typing is not programming. Programming requires a long concentration effort. The typing is the most minor aspect of programming. There are times when it may take two days to write 50 lines of code... if that code needs to perform a complex task.
The basic problem with any task that requires significant time is that that task is incompatible with taking care of children. I know this because I take of children. And, the old tired response, if you don't have children - or if you do but are not the primary full time caregiver - you have no idea what you are talking about...
Most women take care of the kids. Society rewards that... yes... true... and society can change those rewards or change the rewarded behavior. However, the OP position was:
"Young women are 'trained' away from careers in technology." Personally, I don't believe the OP hypothesis holds up... the reason why women are not represented in large numbers in tech careers is probably more related to child bearing and rearing than early life 'training' or indoctrination, if you will...
Further, it's important to note this is not necessarily a 'problem'. It is a problem if a given woman wishes to have a career in tech and is willing to give up raising kids to have the career with the result that the particular woman is then denied that career... or is discriminated against in a career simply because she is a woman. However, if the woman wishes to leave the work place at 3:30 PM each day to pick up kids from daycare --- why should a given employer pay for that lost time?
I can see a solution if both parents are employed by the same employer --- then maybe there can be a 'slush' time-fund which is passed between male and female workers. However, at the end of the day, the work needs to be done or the company doesn't perform.
The essential issue is the employer and how can a employee's uneven work schedule be accommodated given a continuous work flow. Furthermore, there is an issue of thought time needed... if someone, male or female, needs to think about a difficult problem, that problem is less likely to be solved under a barrage of continuous family related interruption.
There is another problem with regard to years spent away from the workplace if a given woman decides to quit work altogether and raise the kids [probably 2 of them on average] until the kids start 1st grade. Given two kids spaced 2.5 years apart... that's at least seven [7] years. These women are very unlikely to get rehired in the tech industry after seven years absence. And quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with that if skills have become rusty, as is most likely. There is a 'problem' if, given the example, a female applicant is denied employment even if the skills are still sharp.
However... That said... I know, from my own experience, that the skills become rusty very fast -- and not even in the Mozilla sense. Days upon days and weeks upon weeks spent with infants and toddlers quickly drains an individual of all possible time and deep thought becomes nearly impossible between the sleepless nights and the strained days. As I said, if you haven't experienced it all first hand -- you have no idea.
> Not that long ago, typing was women's work.
Typing is not programming. Programming requires a long concentration effort. The typing is the most minor aspect of programming. There are times when it may take two days to write 50 lines of code... if that code needs to perform a complex task.
The basic problem with any task that requires significant time is that that task is incompatible with taking care of children. I know this because I take of children. And, the old tired response, if you don't have children - or if you do but are not the primary full time caregiver - you have no idea what you are talking about...
Most women take care of the kids. Society rewards that... yes... true... and society can change those rewards or change the rewarded behavior. However, the OP position was:
"Young women are 'trained' away from careers in technology." Personally, I don't believe the OP hypothesis holds up... the reason why women are not represented in large numbers in tech careers is probably more related to child bearing and rearing than early life 'training' or indoctrination, if you will...
Further, it's important to note this is not necessarily a 'problem'. It is a problem if a given woman wishes to have a career in tech and is willing to give up raising kids to have the career with the result that the particular woman is then denied that career... or is discriminated against in a career simply because she is a woman. However, if the woman wishes to leave the work place at 3:30 PM each day to pick up kids from daycare --- why should a given employer pay for that lost time?
I can see a solution if both parents are employed by the same employer --- then maybe there can be a 'slush' time-fund which is passed between male and female workers. However, at the end of the day, the work needs to be done or the company doesn't perform.
The essential issue is the employer and how can a employee's uneven work schedule be accommodated given a continuous work flow. Furthermore, there is an issue of thought time needed... if someone, male or female, needs to think about a difficult problem, that problem is less likely to be solved under a barrage of continuous family related interruption.
There is another problem with regard to years spent away from the workplace if a given woman decides to quit work altogether and raise the kids [probably 2 of them on average] until the kids start 1st grade. Given two kids spaced 2.5 years apart... that's at least seven [7] years. These women are very unlikely to get rehired in the tech industry after seven years absence. And quite frankly, there's nothing wrong with that if skills have become rusty, as is most likely. There is a 'problem' if, given the example, a female applicant is denied employment even if the skills are still sharp.
However... That said... I know, from my own experience, that the skills become rusty very fast -- and not even in the Mozilla sense. Days upon days and weeks upon weeks spent with infants and toddlers quickly drains an individual of all possible time and deep thought becomes nearly impossible between the sleepless nights and the strained days. As I said, if you haven't experienced it all first hand -- you have no idea.
When the zombie apocalypse comes, Grace Hopper is coming after you guys.
@cybertao:
You've proved the point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
"She was married to New York University professor Vincent Foster Hopper (1906–76) from 1930 until their divorce in 1945.[14][18] She never remarried, and she kept his surname."
and...
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_Grace_Hopper_have_any_children
"no grace never had any children she got divorced in 1945 Isn't that sad? She is so cool, I think she should of had a child. "
Children are the reason why women stay out of time intensive careers. If the children never happen along, the career can be great.
This is also the view of RMS. And this view has many many examples throughout history and the modern tech era.
It's not that women have no brains, no skils, and wear skirts. Rather, it's that women bear and rear children.
***
As an aside, women at the park with the kids are just as dismissive and sexist as is possible to be... It's very difficult to work within an environment as an outsider and 'the group' is always suspicious of outsiders whether those outsiders are male, female, black, or white, or purple, or Methodist. Last - it's nearly impossible to do significant deep thought type work while simultaneously caring for infants and toddlers.
You've proved the point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
"She was married to New York University professor Vincent Foster Hopper (1906–76) from 1930 until their divorce in 1945.[14][18] She never remarried, and she kept his surname."
and...
http://www.answers.com/Q/Did_Grace_Hopper_have_any_children
"no grace never had any children she got divorced in 1945 Isn't that sad? She is so cool, I think she should of had a child. "
Children are the reason why women stay out of time intensive careers. If the children never happen along, the career can be great.
This is also the view of RMS. And this view has many many examples throughout history and the modern tech era.
It's not that women have no brains, no skils, and wear skirts. Rather, it's that women bear and rear children.
***
As an aside, women at the park with the kids are just as dismissive and sexist as is possible to be... It's very difficult to work within an environment as an outsider and 'the group' is always suspicious of outsiders whether those outsiders are male, female, black, or white, or purple, or Methodist. Last - it's nearly impossible to do significant deep thought type work while simultaneously caring for infants and toddlers.
Grace Hopper doesn't prove a women has to be childless to have a successful career (which would have been more to do with the dedication to her military career than academic abilities), or that women who have children are addle brained. She does demonstrate that not all women have a preoccupation with being addle brained baby factories though.
I hope those presenting the 'addle brained breeder' perspective haven't limited the expectations of their daughters to that, and have more respect for their partners than just being breeding stock.
I hope those presenting the 'addle brained breeder' perspective haven't limited the expectations of their daughters to that, and have more respect for their partners than just being breeding stock.
I don't suppose that anyone's noticed, but...
... none of the women who used to take part in the LXer forum seem to be around any more -- or at least, if they are still around, they're no longer bothering to take part in the discussions.
Perhaps, just maybe, there's a connection?
... none of the women who used to take part in the LXer forum seem to be around any more -- or at least, if they are still around, they're no longer bothering to take part in the discussions.
Perhaps, just maybe, there's a connection?
@cybertao:
I did not and do not think or believe that women are addle brained with or without children.
However, I do know -- from personal experience -- that caring for infants and toddlers is thoroughly incompaitable with work that requires significant continuous and uninterrupted time.
And, yes, Grace Hopper demonstrates clearly both that:
I don't think most women care about Lxer. The number of women in the tech field overall is quite tiny as a percentage of the total, and I highly doubt the small number are lurking in the corners of a low traffic GNU/Linux news aggregation website. Last - *all* of the women I know who are in the tech field are childless and/or young. I know a few older women in other science fields... and those few are also childless.
Please note that it is not impossible to have child and be in the tech/science fields. However, it is nearly impossible to be the primary care giver for children and be in the tech/science fields. This is true for males and females... it just so happens that females are statistically about 98% of the primary care givers.
I did not and do not think or believe that women are addle brained with or without children.
However, I do know -- from personal experience -- that caring for infants and toddlers is thoroughly incompaitable with work that requires significant continuous and uninterrupted time.
And, yes, Grace Hopper demonstrates clearly both that:
- Women are just as able as men to do technical work.
- Women without children have time to do technical work.
I don't think most women care about Lxer. The number of women in the tech field overall is quite tiny as a percentage of the total, and I highly doubt the small number are lurking in the corners of a low traffic GNU/Linux news aggregation website. Last - *all* of the women I know who are in the tech field are childless and/or young. I know a few older women in other science fields... and those few are also childless.
Please note that it is not impossible to have child and be in the tech/science fields. However, it is nearly impossible to be the primary care giver for children and be in the tech/science fields. This is true for males and females... it just so happens that females are statistically about 98% of the primary care givers.
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
I don't see anyone keeping them from posting, do you? I know of three prominent female posters to LXer over the years. Two of them seem to have moved on and third only posts intermittently now.