'Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women' says GitHub's diversity guru - Polidicks

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49716451]Even then, we've managed to shed a lot of our "primal" instincts in favour of society. Fields such as the sciences don't really have much of a reason to be heavily skewed in one direction or another. There's little from nature that should impact that, humans are natural problem solvers and explorers in general, not just one gender. It's why we're where we are after all.[/QUOTE] Here's something I don't get at all: People say that somewhat gendered career paths are a social construct and thus those constructs must be eliminated. So basically according to them things would be ideal if everybody chose the career that they are naturally attracted to, without being influenced by external social factors, right? But then you say that in the event of natural preferences being a cause of uneven distribution of genders in certain fields, those preferences should be overridden by social constructs so that everything is 50/50. What's the point then? You're not rooting for people's personal preferences nor for societal influences potentially inspiring enjoyable career paths. What reason is there behind wanting everything to have the same amount of men and women in it beyond some misguided desire for everyone to be identical?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;49715672]"no girls no wanty" is super lazy and a total cop-out. The weirdly excessive divide between the genders in various fields is an interesting social problem (before any of you jump on me for using the word problem, it's being used in the analytical sense, not the "this is 100% bad all the time" sense). Why does this gap exist? What causes the genders to generally gravitate to certain fields? Most of the fields we use in examples have quite literally no gender specific requirements after all (anybody can program, anybody could become a nurse, anybody could drive a truck, etc.).[/QUOTE] Biologists, nuerologists and sociologists are working on this buts pretty clear that women value stability and family life more than men. We really shouldn't care about having parity, what we should be caring about is the opportunities available and the barriers to be broken. If a woman wants to be an engineer she should have no barriers (the same amount as a male engineering student). If women just prefer to be housekeepers, nurses and teachers we should be fine with that. As long as they're doing what they want.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49720045]Biologists, nuerologists and sociologists are working on this buts pretty clear that women value stability and family life more than men. [/QUOTE] If we were talking about having slightly more men than women in tech fields and slightly more women in social fields, then yes, those innate biological differences are an important factor to consider as they do skew the results. People asking for a perfect 50/50 split are making a lot of unreasonable assumptions. But when fields like programming show extreme disparity like 80/20 when historically it used to be more equitable, saying that women just don't like programming because biotruths is not a legitimate answer. Societal differences in how boys and girls are raised and the perception of the sciences as an old boys club have way more impact on gender ratios in tech than biological differences. It's a cop-out to just attribute it all to biology like many here seem to do.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720163]If we were talking about having slightly more men than women in tech fields and slightly more women in social fields, then yes, those innate biological differences are an important factor to consider as they do skew the results. People asking for a perfect 50/50 split are making a lot of unreasonable assumptions. But when fields like programming show extreme disparity like 80/20 when historically it used to be more equitable, saying that women just don't like programming because biotruths is not a legitimate answer. Societal differences in how boys and girls are raised and the perception of the sciences as an old boys club have way more impact on gender ratios in tech than biological differences. It's a cop-out to just attribute it all to biology like many here seem to do.[/QUOTE] And then again I ask: Why is that a problem exactly? Apparently enabling natural preferences is not the goal here, nor do I think it should be. What's the point in trying to encourage one gender or another to pursue a career that is typically not attractive to them? Who gives a shit whether people end up being a nurse or an electrician if that's the path they chose?

[QUOTE=_Axel;49720226]And then again I ask: Why is that a problem exactly? Apparently enabling natural preferences is not the goal here, nor do I think it should be. What's the point in trying to encourage one gender or another to pursue a career that is typically not attractive to them? Who gives a shit whether people end up being a nurse or an electrician if that's the path they chose?[/QUOTE] Huh? Are you really asking me why it's a problem if cultural concepts like 'boys program, girls don't' is driving people away from careers that might otherwise be suited to their skills and interests? I don't know about you but when I hear a man say 'I wanted to be a schoolteacher, but I was worried people would think I'm a pedophile, so I went into business instead' I don't think that's okay. Enabling natural preferences is exactly the point; it's hard for people to follow the career that naturally appeals to them if they know they're going to face opposition on account of their race, gender, or some other factor out of their control.

Straight white men. White women. Who's next on the chopping block?

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;49720339]Straight white men. White women. Who's next on the chopping block?[/QUOTE] Straight Asian men since they outearn everyone. [QUOTE=catbarf;49720308]Huh? Are you really asking me why it's a problem if cultural concepts like 'boys program, girls don't' is driving people away from careers that might otherwise be suited to their skills and interests? I don't know about you but when I hear a man say 'I wanted to be a schoolteacher, but I was worried people would think I'm a pedophile, so I went into business instead' I don't think that's okay. Enabling natural preferences is exactly the point; it's hard for people to follow the career that naturally appeals to them if they know they're going to face opposition on account of their race, gender, or some other factor out of their control.[/QUOTE] You're talking about imaginary barriers that are yet to be proven. Please, come up with facts to back your claims because so far the only reason for women not getting in STEM fields is personal preference. I see plenty men being discouraged from being nurses and teachers, but I've yet to see women being discouraged from doing IT.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720308]Huh? Are you really asking me why it's a problem if cultural concepts like 'boys program, girls don't' is driving people away from careers that might otherwise be suited to their skills and interests? I don't know about you but when I hear a man say 'I wanted to be a schoolteacher, but I was worried people would think I'm a pedophile, so I went into business instead' I don't think that's okay. Enabling natural preferences is exactly the point; it's hard for people to follow the career that naturally appeals to them if they know they're going to face opposition on account of their race, gender, or some other factor out of their control.[/QUOTE] I thought you were referring to more subtle influences, obviously social influences that would put people in a bad situation if they don't conform to the norm are unacceptable, since that would be discriminating against people who choose anything but the typical career path. But societal norms influencing people's choices in careers don't necessarily result in people who wander astray from them being shunned for it, and if that's the case people really should be focused more on making others accept diversity rather than enforce it. At any rate, I don't understand the need for trying to enable natural preferences. Natural preferences at their core would be foraging for food and reproducing, since that's basically all you're left with if you remove every non-natural influence. Anything else is the result of some form of media or external influence shaping your own preferences, and I don't see how that's necessarily a bad thing. Would you say that science fiction is a bad thing because some kid dreams of becoming an astronaut since he watched Star Trek or Interstellar? I doubt so.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49720384]You're talking about imaginary barriers that are yet to be proven. Please, come up with facts to back your claims because so far the only reason for women not getting in STEM fields is personal preference.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'm sure programming is a sausagefest because women are just innately bad at it, even though the industry was far more equal forty years ago. Biotruths, you know. And Grace Hopper was secretly a man in drag. [QUOTE=_Axel;49720403]But societal norms influencing people's choices in careers don't necessarily result in people who wander astray from them being shunned for it, and if that's the case people really should be focused more on making others accept diversity rather than enforce it.[/QUOTE] The difference between 'making others accept diversity' and 'enforc(ing) it' seems rather vague to me. How do you [i]make[/i] others accept diversity without enforcing something? [QUOTE=_Axel;49720403]Would you say that science fiction is a bad thing because some kid dreams of becoming an astronaut since he watched Star Trek or Interstellar? I doubt so.[/QUOTE] No, not at all. But if that kid had a natural talent for teaching, and got bombarded with science fiction by his parents instead because teaching is for girls, I think that's a problem. It's not a problem with him, he's not wrong to follow his dream of becoming an astronaut. It's not even a problem of his parents, they're following typical norms. It's a problem of society, and because of society's expectations he will never realize his potential as a teacher. Maybe he's happy with whatever job he ends up with, but I bet he'd be happier if his choices hadn't been shaped and constrained by artificial gender norms. I think there are probably some women very happy in their jobs who would have been even better engineers, programmers, or scientists, but were steered away from 'masculine' toys, activities, and interests from a young age. I just think that's pretty lame, and it's a total cop-out to dismissively say it's because women biologically don't like engineering/programming/science and ignore all the social factors at work.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720496]Yes, I'm sure programming is a sausagefest because women are just innately bad at it, even though the industry was far more equal forty years ago. Biotruths, you know. And Grace Hopper was secretly a man in drag. [/QUOTE] Preference is different from aptitude. I'm sure many women would be apt at working in sewage.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49720506]Preference is different from aptitude. I'm sure many women would be apt at working in sewage.[/QUOTE] Or trash disposal, construction work, or working on a deep sea oil-rig. [editline]wait[/editline] The last one being hard work, but pays immensely well if you can deal being away from everybody else but work colleagues for month(s) at a time. Seriously, if you're asocial yet can work in teams, then that's your dreamjob for earning dole.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720496]The difference between 'making others accept diversity' and 'enforc(ing) it' seems rather vague to me. How do you [i]make[/i] others accept diversity without enforcing something?[/QUOTE] Accepting diversity would be, for example, treating a female co-worker the same as you do every other co-worker even if you're in a male-dominated field. Enforcing diversity would be doing everything you can to make sure the field is as diverse as possible. Sorry if the difference wasn't clear. [QUOTE]No, not at all. But if that kid had a natural talent for teaching, and got bombarded with science fiction by his parents instead because teaching is for girls, I think that's a problem. It's not a problem with him, he's not wrong to follow his dream of becoming an astronaut. It's not even a problem of his parents, they're following typical norms. It's a problem of society, and because of society's expectations he will never realize his potential as a teacher. Maybe he's happy with whatever job he ends up with, but I bet he'd be happier if his choices hadn't been shaped and constrained by artificial gender norms.[/QUOTE] I don't get it. If he got bombarded by SF because his parents are simply big SF nerds and not because teaching is for girls (which is a pretty weird reason) would there be a problem? The end result is pretty much the same. By the way you're saying he has a natural talent for teaching, which doesn't necessarily mean he would enjoy it, but I assume he would for the sake of the example. [QUOTE]I think there are probably some women very happy in their jobs who would have been even better engineers, programmers, or scientists, but were steered away from 'masculine' toys, activities, and interests from a young age. I just think that's pretty lame, and it's a total cop-out to dismissively say it's because women biologically don't like engineering/programming/science and ignore all the social factors at work.[/QUOTE] You can say that about every social influence ever. Preferences don't exist in a vacuum, they're largely formed by your experiences. You may have some innate tendency to like certain things but there's no way you can discover that without being influenced towards trying those things out in the first place. In the end yeah, maybe some career paths would have been more enjoyable, but the one you chose is what seems the most enjoyable given the culture you've been exposed to. And from that standpoint, most gender norms are no different from media at large.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49720506]Preference is different from aptitude. I'm sure many women would be apt at working in sewage.[/QUOTE] And society, which skews preference, encourages women not to go into fields like construction work or sewage, because those are for men. Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place, that there are social factors skewing men and women away from certain fields and that shouldn't be the case. At least in those two cases there are legitimate biological differences that are relevant to physically demanding jobs. Would you care to explain why you believe women prefer not to become programmers? Like I said before, you can't blame that on biology when programming used to be much more equal just a few decades ago. If you want to say women just don't prefer to become programmers, there has to be a reason, and at this point I don't see any possibility besides either innate biological difference (which is, again, bogus, because women were pioneers in the field and the trend of programming becoming predominantly male is a relatively recent phenomenon) or socialization, which is what I've been saying. [QUOTE=_Axel;49720619]Accepting diversity would be, for example, treating a female co-worker the same as you do every other co-worker even if you're in a male-dominated field. Enforcing diversity would be doing everything you can to make sure the field is as diverse as possible. Sorry if the difference wasn't clear.[/QUOTE] That's fair. Affirmative action is the clearest example of the latter category, and like I said, I don't agree with it. But it's been demonstrated that passive approaches like 'just treat everyone the same' don't really work because of systemic and unconscious biases. For example, it's easy to say 'don't discriminate based on race', but then we see stats showing that just having a black-sounding name makes you less likely to get hired. How do you combat that without some kind of enforcement? I don't have an answer. I just think there has to be a middle ground between ineffectual measures and artificial solutions like affirmative action. [QUOTE=_Axel;49720619]I don't get it. If he got bombarded by SF because his parents are simply big SF nerds and not because teaching is for girls (which is a pretty weird reason) would there be a problem? The end result is pretty much the same. By the way you're saying he has a natural talent for teaching, which doesn't necessarily mean he would enjoy it, but I assume he would for the sake of the example.[/QUOTE] If the end result is that men generally don't become teachers and boys who would like teaching never have the opportunity to try, then I think that's a societal problem. In the individual case, if the parents are driving the kid away from certain interests (in this case, teaching), I think that's a problem too. There are plenty of stories of, for example, the parent who wants their kid to be a doctor or lawyer and pressuring them towards that instead of acting or art or whatever they want to do. Generally, the parents' actions are seen as wrong. At the very least, I think it's good for parents to expose their kids to a wide variety of careers and interests so they have the opportunity to decide what they like. Not giving them that opportunity is bad, driving them away from 'undesirable' interests is worse, and driving them away from interests solely because they don't match gender norms is doubleplusungood. [QUOTE=_Axel;49720619]You can say that about every social influence ever. Preferences don't exist in a vacuum, they're largely formed by your experiences. You may have some innate tendency to like certain things but there's no way you can discover that without being influenced towards trying those things out in the first place. In the end yeah, maybe some career paths would have been more enjoyable, but the one you chose is what seems the most enjoyable given the culture you've been exposed to. And from that standpoint, most gender norms are no different from media at large.[/QUOTE] All of that is true, but I don't think that's implicitly a justification. Preferences may not exist in a vacuum, but I don't think it's right or fair for them to be skewed by something as arbitrary as gender norms. Like you said, you have no way to discover those innate tendencies without being influenced towards trying those things out- and you won't find many parents who influence their male children to try out, say, fashion. I think that's disappointing. If I sit down at a restaurant and you only give me half a menu, sure, I'll probably find something I'll like, but why can't I have all the options?

I linked a study earlier, STEM loves women and hires them more. [QUOTE=Aphtonites;49720339]Straight white men. White women. Who's next on the chopping block?[/QUOTE] Student campuses have banned crossdressing, likening it to black face and gay men have been attacked by academics for being sexist against women, IE, not wanting sex with them.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720755]And society, which skews preference, encourages women not to go into fields like construction work or sewage, because those are for men. Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place, that there are social factors skewing men and women away from certain fields and that shouldn't be the case. At least in those two cases there are legitimate biological differences that are relevant to physically demanding jobs. Would you care to explain why you believe women prefer not to become programmers? Like I said before, you can't blame that on biology when programming used to be much more equal just a few decades ago. If you want to say women just don't prefer to become programmers, there has to be a reason, and at this point I don't see any possibility besides either innate biological difference (which is, again, bogus, because women were pioneers in the field and the trend of programming becoming predominantly male is a relatively recent phenomenon) or socialization, which is what I've been saying.[/QUOTE] What I beleive doesn't matter. What matter is that there's tons of programs to have women on STEM in general, yet women still prefer to enroll on other areas. I don't know why people are so averse to a biological answer.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49721113]What I beleive doesn't matter. What matter is that there's tons of programs to have women on STEM in general, yet women still prefer to enroll on other areas.[/QUOTE] So in other words, you have nothing. You just want to assert that women don't want to go into programming for some unknown, inscrutable reason rather than accept that it might be because society discourages women from pursuing tech careers, that it's a hostile work environment, or any of the other possible explanations that point to a cultural issue and not biology. Scholarships to get women into STEM are not the be-all and end-all of social factors, any more than scholarships and programs to hire men as schoolteachers or fashion designers will lead to gender parity overnight. [QUOTE=Ragekipz;49721113]I don't know why people are so averse to a biological answer.[/QUOTE] Because, for the third time, some of the biggest pioneers in programming were women. Back in the 70s and 80s, [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding]more women worked in the field[/url]. The current proportion of women in programming is [i]half[/i] of what it was in 1985, just thirty years ago. The 'women biologically aren't predisposed to it' answer is bullshit because it's proposing an innate biological cause for something that's only a recent phenomenon.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720755]And society, which skews preference, encourages women not to go into fields like construction work or sewage, because those are for men. Which is exactly what I was saying in the first place, that there are social factors skewing men and women away from certain fields and that shouldn't be the case. At least in those two cases there are legitimate biological differences that are relevant to physically demanding jobs. Would you care to explain why you believe women prefer not to become programmers? Like I said before, you can't blame that on biology when programming used to be much more equal just a few decades ago. If you want to say women just don't prefer to become programmers, there has to be a reason, and at this point I don't see any possibility besides either innate biological difference (which is, again, bogus, because women were pioneers in the field and the trend of programming becoming predominantly male is a relatively recent phenomenon) or socialization, which is what I've been saying. That's fair. Affirmative action is the clearest example of the latter category, and like I said, I don't agree with it. But it's been demonstrated that passive approaches like 'just treat everyone the same' don't really work because of systemic and unconscious biases. For example, it's easy to say 'don't discriminate based on race', but then we see stats showing that just having a black-sounding name makes you less likely to get hired. How do you combat that without some kind of enforcement? I don't have an answer. I just think there has to be a middle ground between ineffectual measures and artificial solutions like affirmative action. If the end result is that men generally don't become teachers and boys who would like teaching never have the opportunity to try, then I think that's a societal problem. In the individual case, if the parents are driving the kid away from certain interests (in this case, teaching), I think that's a problem too. There are plenty of stories of, for example, the parent who wants their kid to be a doctor or lawyer and pressuring them towards that instead of acting or art or whatever they want to do. Generally, the parents' actions are seen as wrong. At the very least, I think it's good for parents to expose their kids to a wide variety of careers and interests so they have the opportunity to decide what they like. Not giving them that opportunity is bad, driving them away from 'undesirable' interests is worse, and driving them away from interests solely because they don't match gender norms is doubleplusungood. All of that is true, but I don't think that's implicitly a justification. Preferences may not exist in a vacuum, but I don't think it's right or fair for them to be skewed by something as arbitrary as gender norms. Like you said, you have no way to discover those innate tendencies without being influenced towards trying those things out- and you won't find many parents who influence their male children to try out, say, fashion. I think that's disappointing. If I sit down at a restaurant and you only give me half a menu, sure, I'll probably find something I'll like, but why can't I have all the options?[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I see your point. Proposing a wide array of options seems to be a good way to encourage nonstandard career paths.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49721179]So in other words, you have nothing. You just want to assert that women don't want to go into programming for some unknown, inscrutable reason rather than accept that it might be because society discourages women from pursuing tech careers, that it's a hostile work environment, or any of the other possible explanations that point to a cultural issue and not biology. Scholarships to get women into STEM are not the be-all and end-all of social factors, any more than scholarships and programs to hire men as schoolteachers or fashion designers will lead to gender parity overnight. Because, for the third time, some of the biggest pioneers in programming were women. Back in the 70s and 80s, [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding]more women worked in the field[/url]. The current proportion of women in programming is [i]half[/i] of what it was in 1985, just thirty years ago. The 'women biologically aren't predisposed to it' answer is bullshit because it's proposing an innate biological cause for something that's only a recent phenomenon.[/QUOTE] Dude, there's a bias in favor for hiring women in STEM, there's scholarships, there's incentives and here you are trying to prove an invisible social oppression based on nothing. Rather than asking "why did women drop out of IT in the last 20 years" you should ask "what fields became more attractive to women in the last 20 years".

[QUOTE=catbarf;49720496]Yes, I'm sure programming is a sausagefest because women are just innately bad at it, even though the industry was far more equal forty years ago. Biotruths, you know. And Grace Hopper was secretly a man in drag. [/QUOTE] im pretty sure he didnt say women were shit at programming or something. in that quote anyways, idk i kinda skimmed this thread ill be honest i don't think anybody really thinks that gender plays a role in programming aptitude most of the girls i've ever talked to dodge programming because they simply don't find sitting on a computer all day, pounding away at some obscure, abstract problem very interesting. their words, not mine. as for programming jobs changing to predominately male dominated, like, comp sci wasn't a big field back then. and engineers, while mostly male, were mostly busy with mechanical/electrical. the concept of a software engineer didn't really exist back then. as software became more promising, there was a massive engineer influx, and as I said before, engineers were mostly males. now more recently, in the 80's, you have the kids who played computer games and programmed their personal computers. they also tended to be largely male. also had a lot of social stigma against them. like, it wasn't a "boy's toy", it was a nerd's toy. nowadays, software is a high-paying job. men are often pushed to work high-paying jobs by many factors. social stigma, themselves, their spouse, etc. many people in college pursuing a programming-related career that i've seen tend to be in it for the salary and job market. it's quite sad really, a lot of them said they wanted to pursue film or music or something, but that there's either no money or it's really fucking hard to find a job. tl;dr, it's not that the actual number of women entering the field decreased-- it's just that the men significantly increased, all with their own motives. whether it's the C64 whiz who dreams about how computers and how they work or the person who would rather be anywhere else, but does it anyways because they "have to", they tend to be mostly male. [editline]11th February 2016[/editline] all these things to try to entice females to the industry really annoy me actually. for example, Girls Who Code. when i was a kid, i never had the money for much. my family was lucky enough to have a computer, cos one of my uncles gave it to us. I had to teach myself. I was lucky. there's a lot of kids where I live who, even now, don't even have a computer in their house. our schools don't have computer science programs, even now. it's hard to program on the library or school computers because they don't let you install the software needed to do anything. now, when Girls Who Code comes to town, the impoverished boy can only watch his sister go and learn things that her brother was not given the opportunity to learn because he wasn't a girl. it's heartbreaking. it reminds me of where my parents lived, where a family would only send their sons to school because they couldn't afford to send their daughters too. why should it be like that now?

[QUOTE=catbarf;49721179]Because, for the third time, some of the biggest pioneers in programming were women. Back in the 70s and 80s, [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding]more women worked in the field[/url]. The current proportion of women in programming is [i]half[/i] of what it was in 1985, just thirty years ago. The 'women biologically aren't predisposed to it' answer is bullshit because it's proposing an innate biological cause for something that's only a recent phenomenon.[/QUOTE] I'd put at least some of the blame on the idiots screaming about discrimination. Telling people they will be discriminated against for going into certain careers is an excellent way to deter them from studying those subjects. After all, the gender gap in STEM subjects and programming etc tends is much larger in the more liberal countries than in for example India or China.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;49702955]Replace the first line with anything other than white women. "This is not work for jewish folks to lead" "This is not work for black folks to lead" "This is not work for asian folks to lead" "This is not work for ______ folks to lead" Jesus christ how fucking shittingly dumb do you have to be to make yourself so progressive that you're a just thinly-veiled racist?[/QUOTE] I can't wait 'till I'm an 60 year old man in a rocking chair, being told by blacks and asians about how white men aren't being represented.

the reason why the tech sector has mostly men is because when they were young there was a stigma against women in programming but that stigma is rapidly going away. people seem to expect though that because the stigma is now going away, the numbers should be even now. that just seems silly to me. basically everyone who grew up from the 90s through the 2000s will have their preferences set by now, so they shouldn't be a focus when trying to remove the stigma. the numbers will even out as more kids grow into working age adults. like, if a girl born in 1996 showed an interest in computers when she was 5 she would probably have been discouraged from it and found interest in somewhere else unless she really wanted to go for it, pushing against the social grain. but by now, its probably too late to get her back into computers, the damage has been done already. focus on the people who are still forming their likes, as in the kids who are growing up now. we have to plant the seeds that bears fruit to our children and not be upset that we can't have a taste of it, too

[QUOTE=phygon;49702781]Anyone got those articles about how STEM loves women but women don't seem to love STEM? Maybe they should stop negatively targeting the comapnies and start positively targeting female youth, where it will actually make a difference[/QUOTE] It's GitHub, they're cunts and they don't have any intention of doing rational things like: Hiring the best practitioner regardless of education or religious or racial background or maybe drawing from a pool of qualified interns and seeing whom works out the best. This a company run in the same fashion as twitter is, and as soon as PC fatigue sets in, someone else will essentially do what they do somewhere else and get the monetary dividends thereof. [editline]12th February 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;49721179]So in other words, you have nothing. You just want to assert that women don't want to go into programming for some unknown, inscrutable reason rather than accept that it might be because society discourages women from pursuing tech careers, that it's a hostile work environment, or any of the other possible explanations that point to a cultural issue and not biology. Scholarships to get women into STEM are not the be-all and end-all of social factors, any more than scholarships and programs to hire men as schoolteachers or fashion designers will lead to gender parity overnight. Because, for the third time, some of the biggest pioneers in programming were women. Back in the 70s and 80s, [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding]more women worked in the field[/url]. The current proportion of women in programming is [i]half[/i] of what it was in 1985, just thirty years ago. The 'women biologically aren't predisposed to it' answer is bullshit because it's proposing an innate biological cause for something that's only a recent phenomenon.[/QUOTE] The craft you work in routinely pays women better than men at the top and corporate level, and very few people complain or even have reason to. There any number of myriad reasons why women would choose not to go on after initial course selection, and not all (any) of them have to do with the Patriarchy ramming its oppressive fists on their theorem solving and routine work ups.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49722235]the reason why the tech sector has mostly men is because when they were young there was a stigma against women in programming but that stigma is rapidly going away. people seem to expect though that because the stigma is now going away, the numbers should be even now. that just seems silly to me. basically everyone who grew up from the 90s through the 2000s will have their preferences set by now, so they shouldn't be a focus when trying to remove the stigma. the numbers will even out as more kids grow into working age adults. like, if a girl born in 1996 showed an interest in computers when she was 5 she would probably have been discouraged from it and found interest in somewhere else unless she really wanted to go for it, pushing against the social grain. but by now, its probably too late to get her back into computers, the damage has been done already. focus on the people who are still forming their likes, as in the kids who are growing up now. we have to plant the seeds that bears fruit to our children and not be upset that we can't have a taste of it, too[/QUOTE] This is what always hangs me up, people clamoring for 50/50 expect it to happen right [i]now[/i], but as you said, the shift is only really going to happen as fast as the generations move. Like, what else is gonna happen? "sorry ma'am, you may be 35 and in a stable career, but the government's latest program has randomly chosen you to work in programming."

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49721385]Dude, there's a bias in favor for hiring women in STEM, there's scholarships, there's incentives and here you are trying to prove an invisible social oppression based on nothing. Rather than asking "why did women drop out of IT in the last 20 years" you should ask "what fields became more attractive to women in the last 20 years".[/QUOTE] One time at my IT college there was this professor from Germany having a presentation where he wanted to "recruit" our female students for German universities. They would be given scholarships, free dorm rooms and stuff as long as they were female. They even had some female student support groups/clubs there to help get used to the new surroundings and language. I couldn't believe it.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49722235]the reason why the tech sector has mostly men is because when they were young there was a stigma against women in programming but that stigma is rapidly going away. people seem to expect though that because the stigma is now going away, the numbers should be even now. that just seems silly to me. basically everyone who grew up from the 90s through the 2000s will have their preferences set by now, so they shouldn't be a focus when trying to remove the stigma. the numbers will even out as more kids grow into working age adults. like, if a girl born in 1996 showed an interest in computers when she was 5 she would probably have been discouraged from it and found interest in somewhere else unless she really wanted to go for it, pushing against the social grain. but by now, its probably too late to get her back into computers, the damage has been done already. focus on the people who are still forming their likes, as in the kids who are growing up now. we have to plant the seeds that bears fruit to our children and not be upset that we can't have a taste of it, too[/QUOTE] Jesus christ Im so glad someone finally said it. People act like just because there have been recent efforts in the past 5 or so years to get women into STEM that the fields should be 50/50 by now. Like no, that is NOT how it works. These are the same people who dont understand that societal change doesnt happen overnight. It is a long process of consistent change and raising awareness for the ignorant.