6 ms·

The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon - it's a big part of the problem. Far too many girls don't even conside

by vog 17y ago

The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon - it's a big part of the problem. Far too many girls don't even consider trying to program, and regret that later in their lives. The first programmers (in a certain sense, wiring the first calculation machines in certain ways to achieve certain results) in fact were women, but something badly changed since then. So the missing women in computer science and programming can't be explained that way. This phenomenon is far more likely to be a problem (and also a shame) of our society. We'll have to work hard to fix it. However, fixing a problem is only possible if you don't deny it.

potatolicious 17y ago
> "The first programmers (in a certain sense, wiring the first calculation machines in certain ways to achieve certain results) in fact were women" I'd argue that "programming" in Ada Lovelace's age is more closely related to modern-day science than computer-science. Note also that scientific fields today are in no real shortage of women. I think the possibility needs to be raised that there's something fundamentally wrong with our field, or at least the people in it - an uncomfortable thought to be sure, but the sheer number of women (growing at that) in every "geeky" field but CS should be an indicator of something. This reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday... I'm just going to throw something out there: I know a lot of CS majors, and a lot of science majors. The science majors are a geeky bunch, but are normal, functioning people for the most part. They will just as easily gab all day about some biological principle as they will the latest pop sensation. Their geekiness complements their personality. Contrast this with the CS majors I know, where their geekiness is their personality. It's almost as if we try too hard to be the stereotype that it is, in the end, all that's left. Not to say all CS majors are like this, but the loudest, most visible ones certainly are, at least where I came from. I know it's a turnoff for me (and I'm a guy), I can't imagine how annoying that'd be for women.
- patio11 17y ago
  Is there an objective standard for "normal, functioning people" or is this a slightly more sophisticated High School 2.0 way of partitioning hobbies or personality quirks into ones which are socially acceptable and ones which are not?
  - ibsulon 17y ago
    It's human 1.0, really.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    No, certainly there isn't - but my comment is no way disparaging to geekiness, but there's a difference between "I am a person who likes sci-fi" and "I am sci-fi incarnate", I'm not sure if I'm getting the difference across well. The science majors I've met, and the "science parties" I've been to are full of people of varied interests, just one (or a few) of which are the geeky sort. These are people who are multi-dimensional enough to carry intelligent conversations on topics both inside and outside that of normal geekdom. Contrast with CS majors (the hardcore ones anyway), and I find that people almost try to be two-dimensional cardboard cutouts of the stereotype. Topics outside of LOTR, Firefly, lolcats memes, etc, are difficult to discuss with anyone. Again, this is not some way to assign value judgments to hobbies - but rather an observation that for a lot of people in our field that I've met, the "geek stereotype" is all they have. There's no dimensionality to their personality, and it's almost as if there's an active rejection of anything that doesn't fit into the archetype they're trying to project. It's also an observation that, in my experience anyhow, people in scientific fields don't really suffer from this. They're not afraid to do geeky things, nor are they afraid to do un-geeky things. They're just people who like whatever it is they happen to like - which is something I wish our field had enough balls to make happen.
  - hugh3 17y ago
    Hmm, I'd say that the best standard is whether the vast majority of people would accept you as being a normal, functioning person. The best standard for hobbies is whether they make you a broader and more interesting person or a narrower and less interesting person. The best hobbies, I think, are the ones where you're creating something, exploring the world, making yourself a better person, or at least getting some exercise. The worst hobbies, I think, are the ones which involve immersing yourself in a narrow stream of entertainment which somebody else has created for you; Star Trek, Firefly, World of Warcraft, LotR, professional baseball. Nothing wrong with any of these in moderation, but when you elevate the consumption of entertainment to the level of a hobby it becomes just plain sad. (No, writing Firefly fan fiction doesn't make it any better. That may be "creative" but you're still unhealthily immersed in somebody else's narrow world.)
- argv_empty 17y ago
  FWIW, at my alma mater, the CS majors who most embodied the stereotype also seemed to have the highest attrition rate. Their concentration was somewhat high in the lower-division classes and very high in the "CS hall" in the dorms, but they weren't nearly so common in upper division classes (to say nothing of the graduate program).
natrius 17y ago
"The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon" It's potentially not a natural phenomenon. To the extent it is unnatural, we should strive to fix it, but most theories behind the discrepancy are conjecture, and when people are blamed for creating an inhospitable environment for others without concrete evidence behind it, nothing constructive will come of it.
- DrSprout 17y ago
  There were no women in my class of 15 Computer Science majors at a small liberal arts college. There were definitely women in my class who took some CS, and took classes initially intending to complete the major. Now, while there are I'm sure a variety of causes for that, it's unquestionable that a class of 15, all of the opposite sex, is an inhospitable environment.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    it's unquestionable that a class of 15, all of the opposite sex, is an inhospitable environment. I'm curious as to: a) your solution to this and b) whether you intend to implement it to more than just computer science, like say Women's Studies and such. I'd think it would be really nice to have a 50/50 split of every possible class, especially when women currently make up 57% of grads.
    - DrSprout 17y ago
      Oh, it's definitely just as much an issue for women's studies. And I don't claim to have a solution. I was taking issue with the assertion that there is no concrete evidence that CS presents an inhospitable environment for women. Yes, it bears more study, but there's clearly an inhospitable environment.
      - run4yourlives 17y ago
        Whether or not there is an "inhospitable environment" is irrelevant if women show low interest rates that are linked to natural factors. Outliers must adapt to the environments they are faced with. The inference of a particular place being "inhospitable" suggests that there is a large percentage minority at least that is being prevented from engaging in the experience because the current set up forces them to disengage. I'm not seeing that. And as much as I wouldn't suggest that a class on French Fashion trends not need to over-accommodate the single male that is obsessed with this, I don't see any pressing needs to do this here either.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
The first programmers (in a certain sense, wiring the first calculation machines in certain ways to achieve certain results) in fact were women, but something badly changed since then. You are somewhat misrepresenting what the original job of "programmers" was. The programmer's job was to translate algorithms written in a higher level language (flow charts) into machine code. The people writing flow charts were predominantly men and went by the title "Systems Engineer". Men were the first programmers, under the modern definition of the term. Women were the first compilers. The major change since then is that compiling high level code to machine code is now done by a computer program rather than a person. That's not a shame of our society, that's a triumph of computer science.
- dgabriel 17y ago
  What you've outlined makes it sound like men were the first software architects, but women were still programmers. Translating a software design into code is definitely still programming, don't you think?
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Writing flow charts is not software architecture, it's just programming in a high level language. Software architecture, as the title is now used, simply did not exist in that era. Programs were not complex enough for it to be relevant. The systems engineers were doing the job we now associate with programming: turning business/scientific problems into flow charts/other high level representations of algorithms which generate the solution. The programmers were merely doing the work of LabVIEW ( http://www.ni.com/labview/whatsnew/ http://www.ni.com/labview/whatsnew/ ) by hand. Do you consider LabVIEW to be a programmer?
    - dgabriel 17y ago
      LabView is a code generation tool that replaces the work a programmer would have to do. Rational Rose has a tool that spits out Java code, but that doesn't mean there are no Java programmers. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay the work these women did, but it's clear from the ENIAC histories and their biographies that they were far, far more than transcriptionists or "compilers". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Holberton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Holberton
ahoyhere 17y ago
"Far too many girls don't even consider trying to program, and regret that later in their lives." Funny, I've talked to tons of women about what I do, and not a single one has ever expressed that programming is cool, or interesting -- much less that they regret not having done it. Look at the success of women in all other "intellectual" professions and you'll see the numbers increasing, not decreasing.
- scotty79 17y ago
  I had roughly same experience with men and women. If they can't program they do not genuinely wish they could. They just say "It's so cool YOU can do this."
  - ahoyhere 17y ago
    I don't think anyone has sincerely said that about the programming aspect of my work, ever. The design, yes. The writing, yes. But to people I talk to, the code is whatever, the invisible shit that makes it work. They don't care.
    - scotty79 17y ago
      I get this comments only if I code on the fly when they are present. They see that there is nothing and after some keyboard clicking there is something.
- hmason 17y ago
  Girls are perhaps less likely to try programming when they're younger, which means they come into undergraduate programs less well-prepared, which overall may contribute to fewer women pursuing CS as a major. (I don't have the data to back that up - yet - so it's worded vaguely). Anecdotally, I know several adult women who are learning to program and kicking ass at it.
run4yourlives 17y ago
The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon You need a citation (or several) for this "fact".
- tjpick 17y ago
  The fact that people who start sentences with "the fact that" really mean "the anecdote that" is not a new phenomenon.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Regardless, anecdotes that form the basis of a call to action should still be supported as fact.
- vog 17y ago
  I was referring to the parent posting, where this was already presented as a fact. I just summarized it to "most women don't want to engage in programming". Please correct me if I misunderstood the parent posting in that regard.
bct 17y ago
The extent to which it is natural is a diversion (as seen by the inevitable responses to your comment). More damning, I think, are the experiences that many women have said discourage them from being programmers, e.g.: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Issues http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Issues > However, fixing a problem is only possible if you don't deny it. Yup. I'm always slightly shocked by how eager HN is to find any explanation for the lack of female programmers that isn't societal.

by vog 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

> "The first programmers (in a certain sense, wiring the first calculation machines in certain ways to achieve certain results) in fact were women" I'd argue that "programming" in Ada Lovelace's age is more closely related to modern-day science than computer-science. Note also that scientific fields today are in no real shortage of women. I think the possibility needs to be raised that there's something fundamentally wrong with our field, or at least the people in it - an uncomfortable thought to be sure, but the sheer number of women (growing at that) in every "geeky" field but CS should be an indicator of something. This reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday... I'm just going to throw something out there: I know a lot of CS majors, and a lot of science majors. The science majors are a geeky bunch, but are normal, functioning people for the most part. They will just as easily gab all day about some biological principle as they will the latest pop sensation. Their geekiness complements their personality. Contrast this with the CS majors I know, where their geekiness is their personality. It's almost as if we try too hard to be the stereotype that it is, in the end, all that's left. Not to say all CS majors are like this, but the loudest, most visible ones certainly are, at least where I came from. I know it's a turnoff for me (and I'm a guy), I can't imagine how annoying that'd be for women.

patio11 17y ago
Is there an objective standard for "normal, functioning people" or is this a slightly more sophisticated High School 2.0 way of partitioning hobbies or personality quirks into ones which are socially acceptable and ones which are not?
- ibsulon 17y ago
  It's human 1.0, really.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  No, certainly there isn't - but my comment is no way disparaging to geekiness, but there's a difference between "I am a person who likes sci-fi" and "I am sci-fi incarnate", I'm not sure if I'm getting the difference across well. The science majors I've met, and the "science parties" I've been to are full of people of varied interests, just one (or a few) of which are the geeky sort. These are people who are multi-dimensional enough to carry intelligent conversations on topics both inside and outside that of normal geekdom. Contrast with CS majors (the hardcore ones anyway), and I find that people almost try to be two-dimensional cardboard cutouts of the stereotype. Topics outside of LOTR, Firefly, lolcats memes, etc, are difficult to discuss with anyone. Again, this is not some way to assign value judgments to hobbies - but rather an observation that for a lot of people in our field that I've met, the "geek stereotype" is all they have. There's no dimensionality to their personality, and it's almost as if there's an active rejection of anything that doesn't fit into the archetype they're trying to project. It's also an observation that, in my experience anyhow, people in scientific fields don't really suffer from this. They're not afraid to do geeky things, nor are they afraid to do un-geeky things. They're just people who like whatever it is they happen to like - which is something I wish our field had enough balls to make happen.
- hugh3 17y ago
  Hmm, I'd say that the best standard is whether the vast majority of people would accept you as being a normal, functioning person. The best standard for hobbies is whether they make you a broader and more interesting person or a narrower and less interesting person. The best hobbies, I think, are the ones where you're creating something, exploring the world, making yourself a better person, or at least getting some exercise. The worst hobbies, I think, are the ones which involve immersing yourself in a narrow stream of entertainment which somebody else has created for you; Star Trek, Firefly, World of Warcraft, LotR, professional baseball. Nothing wrong with any of these in moderation, but when you elevate the consumption of entertainment to the level of a hobby it becomes just plain sad. (No, writing Firefly fan fiction doesn't make it any better. That may be "creative" but you're still unhealthily immersed in somebody else's narrow world.)
argv_empty 17y ago
FWIW, at my alma mater, the CS majors who most embodied the stereotype also seemed to have the highest attrition rate. Their concentration was somewhat high in the lower-division classes and very high in the "CS hall" in the dorms, but they weren't nearly so common in upper division classes (to say nothing of the graduate program).

natrius 17y ago

"The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon" It's potentially not a natural phenomenon. To the extent it is unnatural, we should strive to fix it, but most theories behind the discrepancy are conjecture, and when people are blamed for creating an inhospitable environment for others without concrete evidence behind it, nothing constructive will come of it.

DrSprout 17y ago
There were no women in my class of 15 Computer Science majors at a small liberal arts college. There were definitely women in my class who took some CS, and took classes initially intending to complete the major. Now, while there are I'm sure a variety of causes for that, it's unquestionable that a class of 15, all of the opposite sex, is an inhospitable environment.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  it's unquestionable that a class of 15, all of the opposite sex, is an inhospitable environment. I'm curious as to: a) your solution to this and b) whether you intend to implement it to more than just computer science, like say Women's Studies and such. I'd think it would be really nice to have a 50/50 split of every possible class, especially when women currently make up 57% of grads.
  - DrSprout 17y ago
    Oh, it's definitely just as much an issue for women's studies. And I don't claim to have a solution. I was taking issue with the assertion that there is no concrete evidence that CS presents an inhospitable environment for women. Yes, it bears more study, but there's clearly an inhospitable environment.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Whether or not there is an "inhospitable environment" is irrelevant if women show low interest rates that are linked to natural factors. Outliers must adapt to the environments they are faced with. The inference of a particular place being "inhospitable" suggests that there is a large percentage minority at least that is being prevented from engaging in the experience because the current set up forces them to disengage. I'm not seeing that. And as much as I wouldn't suggest that a class on French Fashion trends not need to over-accommodate the single male that is obsessed with this, I don't see any pressing needs to do this here either.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

The first programmers (in a certain sense, wiring the first calculation machines in certain ways to achieve certain results) in fact were women, but something badly changed since then. You are somewhat misrepresenting what the original job of "programmers" was. The programmer's job was to translate algorithms written in a higher level language (flow charts) into machine code. The people writing flow charts were predominantly men and went by the title "Systems Engineer". Men were the first programmers, under the modern definition of the term. Women were the first compilers. The major change since then is that compiling high level code to machine code is now done by a computer program rather than a person. That's not a shame of our society, that's a triumph of computer science.

dgabriel 17y ago
What you've outlined makes it sound like men were the first software architects, but women were still programmers. Translating a software design into code is definitely still programming, don't you think?
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Writing flow charts is not software architecture, it's just programming in a high level language. Software architecture, as the title is now used, simply did not exist in that era. Programs were not complex enough for it to be relevant. The systems engineers were doing the job we now associate with programming: turning business/scientific problems into flow charts/other high level representations of algorithms which generate the solution. The programmers were merely doing the work of LabVIEW ( http://www.ni.com/labview/whatsnew/ http://www.ni.com/labview/whatsnew/ ) by hand. Do you consider LabVIEW to be a programmer?
  - dgabriel 17y ago
    LabView is a code generation tool that replaces the work a programmer would have to do. Rational Rose has a tool that spits out Java code, but that doesn't mean there are no Java programmers. I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay the work these women did, but it's clear from the ENIAC histories and their biographies that they were far, far more than transcriptionists or "compilers". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Holberton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Holberton

ahoyhere 17y ago

"Far too many girls don't even consider trying to program, and regret that later in their lives." Funny, I've talked to tons of women about what I do, and not a single one has ever expressed that programming is cool, or interesting -- much less that they regret not having done it. Look at the success of women in all other "intellectual" professions and you'll see the numbers increasing, not decreasing.

scotty79 17y ago
I had roughly same experience with men and women. If they can't program they do not genuinely wish they could. They just say "It's so cool YOU can do this."
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  I don't think anyone has sincerely said that about the programming aspect of my work, ever. The design, yes. The writing, yes. But to people I talk to, the code is whatever, the invisible shit that makes it work. They don't care.
  - scotty79 17y ago
    I get this comments only if I code on the fly when they are present. They see that there is nothing and after some keyboard clicking there is something.
hmason 17y ago
Girls are perhaps less likely to try programming when they're younger, which means they come into undergraduate programs less well-prepared, which overall may contribute to fewer women pursuing CS as a major. (I don't have the data to back that up - yet - so it's worded vaguely). Anecdotally, I know several adult women who are learning to program and kicking ass at it.

run4yourlives 17y ago

The fact that most women don't want to engage in programming is not a natural phenomenon You need a citation (or several) for this "fact".

tjpick 17y ago
The fact that people who start sentences with "the fact that" really mean "the anecdote that" is not a new phenomenon.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Regardless, anecdotes that form the basis of a call to action should still be supported as fact.
vog 17y ago
I was referring to the parent posting, where this was already presented as a fact. I just summarized it to "most women don't want to engage in programming". Please correct me if I misunderstood the parent posting in that regard.

bct 17y ago

The extent to which it is natural is a diversion (as seen by the inevitable responses to your comment). More damning, I think, are the experiences that many women have said discourage them from being programmers, e.g.: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Issues http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Issues > However, fixing a problem is only possible if you don't deny it. Yup. I'm always slightly shocked by how eager HN is to find any explanation for the lack of female programmers that isn't societal.