51–60 of 140 posts
No one will be happy until we have full blown socialism where everyone is assigned a career at birth that maintains a neat ratio for every industry by race/sex.
Im impressed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack." Not sure if this is troll bait, but... are you serious? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
1. Men run everything. 2. Men often don't think of women as human. 3. Women are under attack by men. I don't think these points are controversial. 1. Women are 50% of the workforce, but 4.5% of fortune 1000 CEO positions. 2. Women didn't get the right to vote in America until 50 years after black people, who were officially only partially human. 3. Is a characterization.
1. A group of men run most things.
2. A group of men often don't think of women as completely human.
3. I don't even know how to fix this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, although it does worry me that the ratio is declining. Specifically, computer-related fields make more than average amount of money, so getting women into tech would help reduce income inequality and associated issues in our society. But here my specific point is: tech fields would be better off with more women!
income inequality is a myth, people with the same job and same amount of experience make the same amount of money on average.
You mean to be dismissive of the wage gap or pay gap, or maybe more specifically the gender wage gap, or male-female income disparity.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is a healthy body of research on the topic, with researchers reaching different conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_St...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack." Not sure if this is troll bait, but... are you serious? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
1. Men run everything. 2. Men often don't think of women as human. 3. Women are under attack by men. I don't think these points are controversial. 1. Women are 50% of the workforce, but 4.5% of fortune 1000 CEO positions. 2. Women didn't get the right to vote in America until 50 years after black people, who were officially only partially human. 3. Is a characterization.
2. Same reasoning as above. This used to be true, and is not anymore. Yes, not giving women the right to vote was bad. But now, they have the right to vote. The problem was solved.
3. Not sure what the merit of it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably not true. The money is pretty good, for one thing :) The ratio used to be higher in the USA, and it's still higher in some other countries. To be specific, it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech while girls are not, which has a few effects. The first is that girls don't really consider tech at all: it's not that they consider and discard it, they just don't think of it. The other is that mo…
"it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech" Please stop encouraging this lie. I've never been encouraged to go into tech, and I'd venture a guess that most people here weren't either. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite the opposite, because every time I was fiddling with a computer, I was told to "stop playing games" and do something "worthwhile".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
keep in mind the common man hasnt been able to vote much longer than that either, before that it was just the aristocracy in power.
Much longer than since 1920? That's just not true.
In 1800, the right to vote was based on wealth and gender (male). Less that 3 adults out of every 100 could vote. Since then, there have been some significant changes to the voting regulations:
1832 Reform Act. Extended the right to vote to certain leaseholders and householders. 5 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1867 Second Reform Act. Further extension of the voting regulations in counties and boroughs. 13 adults out of every 100 could vote, but still based on wealth.
1872 Secret Ballot Act. Introduced voting by secret ballot.
1884 Representation of the People Act. Any male occupying land or property with an annual rateable value of £10 could vote. 24 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1918 Representation of the People Act. All males over the age of 21 were given the vote. Women over 30 got the vote. Women could sit in the House of Commons as MPs. 75 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1928 Representation of the People Act. Uniform voting rights were extended to all men and women over the age of 21. 99 adults out of every 100 could vote.
1969 Representation of the People Act. The voting age was reduced to all men and women over the age of 18.
1985 Representation of the People Act. Voters who, at the time of an election, are abroad, either working or on holiday, may apply for a postal vote.
2000 Representation of the People Act. Introduced changes to electoral registration and extended postal vote provisions.
In terms of the US you will probably find something similar that for the most part it was land owners only who could vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the tech field be better off with more women?
Computing is a very young field. It's well on its way to infiltrating our everyday lives, but it's incredibly underdeveloped. Leaving women out of the process of creating the world we're going to live in seems like a really bad idea.
Is some force actually "leaving out" women in creating the future? Is there some force that's going to lay the smackdown on people like Jeri Ellsworth so that they never go anywhere?
You've shifted the goal posts a bit with the emphasis on having more women in positions of creating the future. Personally, I'd rather humanity had more people willing and capable of creating a better future, period, regardless of the other details of their identity. I think there's a shortage, and I regret that my own contributions will if anything likely only be financial to those doing the hard work. Anyway, why would the tech field, as a whole, be better off with more women, when most people in the tech field, male or female, actually don't actively contribute to steering the future?
(On your earlier point about income inequality, you might benefit from reading PG's views about that: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)
There's no connection between the headline and the article, which not only doesn't examine the results of any women-only initiatives, but only mentions a single example (that it seems to approve of.) >But there’s something wrong when we treat half the population like a minority or special interest group. There's also something wrong when we treat half the population like baby breeding kitchen help, too. We remediate…
"Women need all the help that they can get because men run everything and often don't really think of women as completely human. Women need help because they are constantly under attack." Not sure if this is troll bait, but... are you serious? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of data on this page http://www.womenintechnology.org/witef/resources It's a bit scattered but here are some parts I found interesting: Women in the mathematics, and engineering have long been underrepresented in tenured and full professor positions but overrepresented in untenured and junior faculty positions, even after controlling for publication productivity and institutional affiliation... Today, w…
I didnt even know who my professors where or would be when I enrolled in university, are you suggesting women dont enroll in IT because there arent female professors?
If this is true, why are only 20% of Computer Science grads women? And the ratio has been falling since 2001.