5 ms·

Software isn't high-risk for women though. Diversity thirsty companies are desperate to hire technical women with even a shred of competency. It's just not a c

by soup10 9y ago

Software isn't high-risk for women though. Diversity thirsty companies are desperate to hire technical women with even a shred of competency. It's just not a cool thing to do though, women don't want to be geeks. There is much more stigma against non-normie women than there is men. Nay for men, there is a heavy stigma against being normal and boring.

pmarreck 9y ago
The article pointed out that men are typically more interested in working with things than women, and women are typically more interested in working with people than men, and that this is highly correlative and can explain many of the differences we see in STEM, because most STEM fields have a lot of "things" going on. The article even generously suggests that many women are adept in BOTH math and verbal, but end up in more verbal jobs because men are typically NOT adept in both, so all the high-math low-verbal guys end up doing mathy jobs, and all the high-math high-verbal women do verbal/people jobs, because the mathy jobs are all the guys can do, while the women can do either (but take the non-mathy jobs due to market effects). Software is kinda mathy, I guess.
- jerf 9y ago
  "Software is kinda mathy, I guess." Food for thought: Software has a bizarre curve if you look at it from a math/verbal skills perspective. For what could very well be the first 10-15 years of a software career, software is very math-y. Then, if you want to continue to grow, it takes a very verbal turn. If you want to continue to grow in software leadership and capabilities, you need to be able to express yourself, convince others, navigate politics, and figure out how to translate these issues into the code you structure and write. It isn't a sudden transition and some may transition earlier than 10 years, but it's an interesting way of looking at things. (Note I'm not talking "management", but continuing up an engineering path.) A lot of engineering looks like that. If software has any unique characteristics it is how far a single math-oriented programmer can get due to our unique abilities to pull down huge libraries with incredible functionality without having to work with anyone to do it. Again, just food for thought with no particular argument in sight here.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Which again, favors not a hypothesis of skills or abilities, but literally what options you have (or choose from) in college...ie, hysteresis.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    If software has any unique characteristics it is how far a single math-oriented programmer can get due to our unique abilities to pull down huge libraries with incredible functionality without having to work with anyone to do it. Right. Even if you are unable or unwilling to play those political games, you can stop at the senior SWE or equivalent level at Google/Facebook/Amazon and still have an income that's well into the top decile. I'm not aware of any other field where you can get that kind of compensation without management or leadership responsibilities.
freshhawk 9y ago
I agree on the stigma point, although that's an extremely recent cultural development so if it was a big factor it would be very visible in the data. And it's already a dying trend, video games and computer use is for normies (thinking otherwise outs you as an old person) and gamergate/alt-light/alt-right trends among geeks has basically killed the whole "geeks are cool" fad. What is high-risk for women in STEM is the risk of having to work with/for sexist idiots.
noobermin 9y ago
I think you're being downvoted for other reasons than your point. I think your point is STEM isn't really in the "high-risk, high-reward" category as is offshore drilling or underwater wielding but is compensated much more than the former. Betting on bitcoin is as risky as becoming choosing to be a starving artist with the chance that one day you'll be the next James Pollock, and as Su. et. al pointed out (cited in article), women are the majority in creative fields. STEM requires a different explanation than "high risk" because it isn't.

by soup10 9y ago

pmarreck 9y ago

The article pointed out that men are typically more interested in working with things than women, and women are typically more interested in working with people than men, and that this is highly correlative and can explain many of the differences we see in STEM, because most STEM fields have a lot of "things" going on. The article even generously suggests that many women are adept in BOTH math and verbal, but end up in more verbal jobs because men are typically NOT adept in both, so all the high-math low-verbal guys end up doing mathy jobs, and all the high-math high-verbal women do verbal/people jobs, because the mathy jobs are all the guys can do, while the women can do either (but take the non-mathy jobs due to market effects). Software is kinda mathy, I guess.

jerf 9y ago
"Software is kinda mathy, I guess." Food for thought: Software has a bizarre curve if you look at it from a math/verbal skills perspective. For what could very well be the first 10-15 years of a software career, software is very math-y. Then, if you want to continue to grow, it takes a very verbal turn. If you want to continue to grow in software leadership and capabilities, you need to be able to express yourself, convince others, navigate politics, and figure out how to translate these issues into the code you structure and write. It isn't a sudden transition and some may transition earlier than 10 years, but it's an interesting way of looking at things. (Note I'm not talking "management", but continuing up an engineering path.) A lot of engineering looks like that. If software has any unique characteristics it is how far a single math-oriented programmer can get due to our unique abilities to pull down huge libraries with incredible functionality without having to work with anyone to do it. Again, just food for thought with no particular argument in sight here.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Which again, favors not a hypothesis of skills or abilities, but literally what options you have (or choose from) in college...ie, hysteresis.
- orangecat 9y ago
  If software has any unique characteristics it is how far a single math-oriented programmer can get due to our unique abilities to pull down huge libraries with incredible functionality without having to work with anyone to do it. Right. Even if you are unable or unwilling to play those political games, you can stop at the senior SWE or equivalent level at Google/Facebook/Amazon and still have an income that's well into the top decile. I'm not aware of any other field where you can get that kind of compensation without management or leadership responsibilities.

freshhawk 9y ago

I agree on the stigma point, although that's an extremely recent cultural development so if it was a big factor it would be very visible in the data. And it's already a dying trend, video games and computer use is for normies (thinking otherwise outs you as an old person) and gamergate/alt-light/alt-right trends among geeks has basically killed the whole "geeks are cool" fad. What is high-risk for women in STEM is the risk of having to work with/for sexist idiots.

noobermin 9y ago

I think you're being downvoted for other reasons than your point. I think your point is STEM isn't really in the "high-risk, high-reward" category as is offshore drilling or underwater wielding but is compensated much more than the former. Betting on bitcoin is as risky as becoming choosing to be a starving artist with the chance that one day you'll be the next James Pollock, and as Su. et. al pointed out (cited in article), women are the majority in creative fields. STEM requires a different explanation than "high risk" because it isn't.