How Women Got Crowded Out of the Computing Revolution

Finally, it's not a double-digit improvement, but of course we can quibble endlessly over how meaningful that exact number is, but it's irrelevant. The number is still piss poor compared to undergrad enrollment, indicating that women don't pursue higher math degrees for various reasons.

The link I initially provided cited evidence that they're interested in undergrad maths because of opportunities it provides outside of pure maths. It's not apparent that similar opportunities exist for CS undergrad degrees, which would be one explanation for the disparity in undergrad math and CS. So I'm still not seeing how anything you've said bears on this at all.

Certainly graduate maths have more women than does CS. So what? What exactly do you think this proves in light of the above?

Except the links you posted don't dispute Damore's arguments at all. Damore's arguments are perfectly consistent with the recommendations in the survey, with the possible exception of stereotype threat, whose studies have come under fire recently.

> We are talking about whether or not that has any bearing on the subject of sexism or relevant policy actions.

You must be confusing threads. Your pollution example has nothing to do with anything we've discussed. I questioned your claim that Damore's arguments disagree with the consensus in the field and asked for evidence supporting your claim. Everything since then has been some bizarre pissing contest in which you repeatedly asserted your position without any apparent understanding of contrary arguments.

> Either you're being too sophisticated for me, or that you're naive in an almost cute way. Obviously, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Nice, insults and ad-hominem. I've read plenty on the subject thanks, and your condescension is just the cherry on top of a now completely pointless thread in which you convinced no one of anything. Congrats. Have a nice day.

His point is that there is no "hand on the other part of the scale holding down women" or whatever quasi-poetic phrase you use.

I'll explain this to you step-by-step.

Your claim was that, well it's a little difficult because you dodge and weave all the time. Anyway, you claimed that there was simply no scientific evidence for what Damore said. When that turned out to be wrong, you claimed that the science was wrong, again without any evidence. When it turned out the science is actually pretty established (even if you don't agree with it), you again switched and said it didn't matter whether the science was wrong or right (huh?), because:

> "issue of sexism, which is far better established, seems to have a much bigger effect"

Now again, you never showed any actual evidence for that theory being either "better established" or having a "bigger effect". Instead you just claimed it and claimed that you knew better, and therefore it must be true. Showing a complete lack of knowledge as to how science works (your approach is religious, not scientific, and of course that is par for the course for "gender and women's studies", which are quite blatant about being about political advocacy rather than scientific truth).

So the people published in the ACM and Professor Fouad did something radical: they asked actual women instead of deciding on their behalf.

And it turns out the biggest issue was not sexism, contrary to what you claim, but "didn't like the work" or "not interested in the work". Which, not entirely coincidentally was what Damore was claiming, though he made the much weaker claim that interest could be a contributing factor. Turns out he was right. Dead on right.

Again, your claim is "sexism >>> interest". Actual science shows "interest >>> sexism". Damore's claim that "interest could be a factor" is right, if much weaker than the truth.

Clearer now?

Does that mean that "sexism is OK"? Of course not, where on earth did you get that from? (Well, you obviously got that from "holy shit what I wrote was complete BS, let's switch the topic", which is of course also why you have steadfastly refused to do what you demand of others and clearly + succinctly state your position. Dodge and weave is all you got)

However, it does show that sexism isn't the primary factor that explains why there are far more men in tech than women. Interest is the main factor that explains the difference, and there are multiple layers of interlocking scientific results, with large sample sizes and large effect sizes that show this to be the case. And as to Damore's point: if you have a wrong theory as to the causes, you're unlikely to get the results you want.

In fact, even though sexism exists (everywhere) it is unclear whether it plays any part in causing the disparity, because (a) women in CS report that they receive more support from the companies than men, not less and (b) there is a well-supported 2:1 hiring advantage.

If anything, sexist practices appear to be preferential towards women, so if sexist treatment stopped you'd have even fewer women in tech, not more.

And as to this whole "women in tech" being a coordinated effort to keep women out of positions of power ("we are concerned about women being marginalized from positions of power"): again, one of the highest targets for women leaving engineering work is management, so they leave for positions of more power, lording it over the menfolk who prefer to do the techie stuff.

And as to the series of incidents that you appear to be referring to.

(a) The plural of anecdote is not data. The data show something else.

(b) Simple math shows that gender disparities are the primary cause of skewed incidents of a sexist nature, not their result. (Though of course you can have feedback loops).

(c) Tech is a shitshow for everyone. If a woman were to recount the things that happened to me in my career, you would take it as the clearest indication of "sexism" possible.

(d) But I don't know if any other professions are better.