Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not a part of science? What does a field need to have to be included in STEM? Just because there are other skills needed besides science based ones doesn't mean it isn't a science field.
It's obviously not a 'basic' science though and other applied sciences that are uncontroversially included in STEM get their own letter (engineering and technology). People differ in whether they think medicine and the other applied sciences fall under the 'science' umbrella or not. Try searching around and you'll see a lot of mixed opinions on the subject.
The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
461–470 of 630 posts
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not seeking judgement. Or asking that people believe me. That has no value to me. It was an example of my reality. It’s an example of how I don’t have this added aggression and hassle if I worked with an all female team. Things just get done quicker if I work in all women team. It’s like we have a hive mind.
I don't know... I've met women very difficult to work with over the years. Men too. I've heard some folks have difficulty working with one gender in particular, usually due to personality conflicts of some sort.
What is important is that 1. Work gets done. 2. We extract maximum efficiency for maximum reward 3. Minimize conflict and increase productivity + work satisfaction.
If this can be achieved with gender segregation at work/school, then why fight it in the name of gender equality.
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Throwaway commenter, despite being downvoted, you're absolutely right! I'm a woman. I AM A WOMAN IN STEM. You know what makes my blood pressure rise? People in real life and in this thread who tell me that I'm naturally not suited to it, that I like people more than things. Go away! Shut the f(*& up! I want to sit here and deal with my code and not have people tell me that I either don't know what I like or I'm not a…
Hey, thanks for your input! What I'm trying to better understand, is whether women who are not applying for programming jobs at the same rate as men, are due to lack of interest, or are they somehow being actively discouraged from the field? I've worked with many women programmers, some of them better than me, so I know it's not the case women are inherently worse at programming than men. But I don't know the reason…
In seventh grade a great (male) teacher of mine recommended a summer program for me, at the dawn of the internet (Gopher!). I joined the math & computer class and was the only girl. None of the boys would talk to me at all. At lunch every day they ditched me and I went to find some kids from the theater class to sit with. Is it malicious? No; it's seventh-grade boys. Is it encouraging? No. I was lonely six hours a day because no one would speak to me.
In my engineering college, it was the dating thing. From being a nerd who was ignored in high school, not exactly prime dating material, I was suddenly transformed into a 'female'. I got asked out constantly. Sounds great, right? But if your classmates only want to have sex with you, and don't want to do homework with you, you're cut off from much of the joy of intellectual discovery of college. I was ignored by the profs and couldn't do a senior project, even though it was in the catalogue, because no prof would sponsor me. When I waitressed, the guys would first flirt with me and then upon discovering I was an undergrad in a tough major they'd turn very serious and gush about how important it was for women to be involved in that field, how special I was. Is it evil? No. It's like being a stay-at-home dad at the park with your kids in the middle of the day. Alienating. (My husband reports he hasn't made it past the none-of-the-moms-talking-to-him phase when he's made his forays.)
From college into grad school the emphasis on me as a potential romantic partner didn't stop. I remember joining the Linux Users Group in the town I went to grad school in. Some great guys, some good parties & good times. All juxtaposed with, for instance, the guy who I thought invited me over to talk about compilers... but when I showed up, candles were lit and the dinner table set for two. Is that evil? Is that an active discouragement from the field? It's just deflating. I thought I'd found someone I could talk to. He didn't want to talk to me after I'd declined to get involved.
I wore baggier and baggier clothes and never figured out how to do makeup or hair (now holding me back in corporate America) but simply trying to disappear into sweatshirts did not enable me to be 'one of the guys'.
In one research center I was involved with in grad school, it was more textbook-style discrimination. The women did all the work and wrote the grants that got the money. How can I say that? Surely it's unfair! But it is true, because everyone in the research group besides the director and one guy was female -- there was literally no one else. The director was phasing into retirement and was trying to groom the guy employee -- taking him to golf on Saturdays, taking guy to drink South African wine with director and director's wife. The problem was that guy employee wasn't very good, and once director retired, guy couldn't do the work and wasn't able to keep that position or the next two. The women found varied levels of success and failure elsewhere, but didn't get the chance at leadership at that center!
Later in grad school and into my postdocs, it was the constant assumption that I was primarily interested in education, not research. Put into a job code where I actually couldn't get funding from the research grants I won, asked last year to contribute to the education components of three guys' research grants to boost their 'broader impacts' score. Not everyone did this -- one colleague actually talked with me about research, and it was really nice.
When I was a prof, one or two (male) students tried to physically intimidate me into giving a higher grade. That's 1, 2 out of thousands... but an experience that my male colleagues did not have. I taught a lot of extra independent studies because people felt 'comfortable' with me; my super-friendly and wonderful and cuddly male colleague didn't experience that. I had to serve on the diversity committee and run a diversity event: I did not want to, but it was strongly implied that my promotion was linked to this service. (Right: I'd forgotten I was 'voluntold' for this by a senior male colleague who then didn't mention my name in the acknowledgements and took all the credit at the opening, because he's a "champion for diversity".) Students also came to me with personal concerns a lot, like roommate problems, family being evicted, needing to schedule an abortion, money trouble. I asked my male colleagues what they did about this and they said they'd never been asked about any of these things! Were these kids in college actively discouraging me from a STEM career? No way in hell! They were lovely young people! But the extra burden of teaching additional independent studies, running this stupid diversity event, and providing tissues to students in real trouble took time away from writing up research, and that's how you get promoted.
I couldn't win the battle with being tracked more and more into education rather than the research I love and left academia for industry this year. Hooray! Now I'm paid more and I 'program all day', and get to do the experimental CS/math/stats I enjoy. Am I a success story or not? I'm the example of the 'leaky pipeline' in academia.
Several replies to my previous comment said things like 'literally no one has said that' there's a conflict between me being female and liking STEM. But from this thread alone:
"I'm my experience women tend to be more interested in human facing parts of software like web and ui development, but less interested in the back end parts." "What if women were calling those environments toxic because they had a hard time doing well in there?" "I don't understand why modern society doesn't understand/want to believe that men and women have different career interests than men. Men and women value things differently, and it's not all because of society." "Ask women and you'll find that most aren't interested in programming a computer all day. Which one could argue is a sane choice. If anything it's more sane. Stop trying to make them feel like something is wrong if they don't have this inclination. Males and females have different preferences on average, some as early as birth[1]." Are any of these commenters actively discouraging me from pursuing my STEM career? No. They're just repeating the message again and again and again that women just like different things. Yeah, I do like different things. But it's always code for "you're not normal". And it's true that I'm statistically not in the majority. Folks, I know that. You don't have to tell me every day. I've been able to calculate percentages for thirty years. I've known I'm outnumbered for thirty years. I'm always aware that I'm a minority. Always. And that's what is tiring. It's not discouraging -- it's the surprise that I exist, then either the turning to talk to someone else or the gush of fake or real 'encouragement' that I'm so brave to be so different.
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you believe there can be any relation between female infants preference towards faces and female adults preference towards occupations with more face to face, people oriented interactions?
I don't, but I also don't care to debate it, and don't need to, because, once again, face-to-face interactions are also extremely common in professional software development.
Deep contemplation of technical problems while staring at a screen and talking to computers for hours on end often made talking to people after work exceedingly difficult
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for using HN exclusively for ideological battle. Doing this will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know... I've met women very difficult to work with over the years. Men too. I've heard some folks have difficulty working with one gender in particular, usually due to personality conflicts of some sort.
It’s always good to have options out. Many men and women work well together without conflict. But I don’t think work places should be forcing some kind of golden ratio for men and women. What is important is that 1. Work gets done. 2. We extract maximum efficiency for maximum reward 3. Minimize conflict and increase productivity + work satisfaction. If this can be achieved with gender segregation at work/school, then…
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way you ask can be just as important as asking. Hence, my comment.
Isn't there another study that said that women were punished for being aggressive like a male in the form of lower performance reviews?
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Robert Martin talks about how in the 60's and 70's women made up a large amount of the worlds programmers. It would seem somewhere along the way we found ways to significantly reduce the number of women entering the profession. I would argue that any biological reasons have little to no influence compared to social factors. If we accept this alternative theory, then the solution is to change the social culture arou…
I am going to assume that the ~35% number that you are giving without context is the number quoted for peak female representation in earning cs degrees in the 80's. If I am wrong, please correct me. This is much later then I was thinking. I could not find numbers but everything that I have found says that at least a majority of programmers were women in before the early 70's. One of the questions I think is important…
Yes, these figures are from degrees earned.
I searched for sources that claim that the majority of computer programmers were women prior to the 70s. The only one I found is very poorly sources. The only one I found was from this page [1] which links to a Guardian article [2], which does not actually provide any data on the workforce composition of computing industries nor how they define what is and isn't a computing job.
> One of the questions I think is important is why were cs degrees so male dominated in something that was previously a female dominated field?
The question cannot be answered because it is based on an incorrect assertion: women never were dominant in programming or computer science - at least computer science as we understand it today.
To be more specific, in order find a time period during which computing was female dominated one has to take a very broad view of what it means to work in "computing". Women dominated computing back when "computer" was a job title [1]. Well into the 20th century, computation was mostly performed by humans and assisted with mechanical calculators [2] and slide rules. This is computing in a very raw sense, but it is not programming. The workers were not creating programs, they were executing programs. This changed during the 1960s and 70s as computers capable of storing and executing programs became cheaper and replaced human computers. To answer your question, women ceased to dominate computing when "computer" no longer referred to people and instead referred to machines and the work involved changed from personally performing computations to programming a computer to perform computations.
Personally, I don't think a human computer has very much to do with computer programming and I think it's a big stretch to try and put the two under the same banner.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_calculator#1900s_to...
> I am going to take your point about a reduction in sexism in other fields at face value since it seems you are more read up on that than I am. I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal to my argument though. A reduction in sexism in other fields would in fact complement an increase in sexism in computer science.
I'm not sure I follow. Why would a reduction in sexism in other fields have any effect on sexism in computer science?
> I'm not sure if it is possible to distinguish the effects of each, especially if they compound on top of each other. It might be a little ironic to choose trial lawyers as an example since I don't think they have that much better of a percentage. I would also like to point out that your conclusion of "field of their choice", in my eyes, is heavily influenced by social factors.
Women exceeded 40% representation in law schools in 1985, and have been at roughly parity since the 1990s. Representation of women in law is unambiguously higher than in computing, and it has been for decades. While the stories of women shared by Clive Thompson specifically wanted to become trial lawyers, their stories were representative of the field of law opening up to women more broadly. The point is, we observe a reduction of women in computing occurring at the time time that fields previously closed to women open up. The result is that women who would have been displaced into computing due to their field of choice being inaccessible now have the opportunity to study their field of choice. This would result in a reduction in women in computing even as computing remained as welcoming as it was before. This is consistent with the data presented by the original post, which observed a negative correlation between gender equality and women's representation in technology fields.
Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#469Re: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM (2018)
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really follow the distinction you're drawing here. If you think that working in isolation is a bad thing, and most programmers should be talking to lots of people all the time, "people who like working alone on challenging tasks are inherently deficient" sounds like an accurate summary of that view. It seems perfectly reasonable for an introvert to say that they don't want to work that way, and that it would…
>"people who like working alone on challenging tasks are inherently deficient" sounds like an accurate summary of that view. ??? I don't say that they're deficient as people, or that working in isolation is bad per se. I'm just saying that people who like to work in isolation are unlikely to make good programmers (in the context of a typical programming job). Personally, I switched to programming from academia, where…
Now it makes sense.