3 ms·

> They clearly are. What is obvious to some of us is that the reason for that disinterest is that the field is hostile to them. Oh yes, hostility manifested by

> They clearly are. What is obvious to some of us is that the reason for that disinterest is that the field is hostile to them. Oh yes, hostility manifested by half-century old magazine ads or phrases like "cowboy coder." If they're allowing their career paths to be altered by innocuous stuff like that, or what a teacher might have told them, I don't think they want it that badly. There are no qualified women banging on the door of the software development profession demanding to be let in. The door is wide open to them, and it always has been.

tptacek 9y ago
No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread, and now that I've taken the time to clarify it, you've decided to respond to an earlier comment I didn't write. If you'd like to keep discussing this with me, you're going to either have to rebut what I said, or acknowledge it.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  > No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread Could you clarify? In every one of my replies to you in this thread, the part I quoted came directly from the post (of yours) to which I replied. And where did I directly challenge any of your statements? I think you have me mixed up with someone else who responded to you.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. You re-rebutted Rayiner's original comment without acknowledging mine. Acknowledge it or rebut it; don't pretend you didn't see it.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      > You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you thought naming a handful of other STEM fields along with a rough participation ratio made your premise any more meaningful. You seem to think that, from the fact that women participate in other STEM fields at a greater rate than CS, you can infer the reason they aren't well-represented in software development. To you, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them." And others who share your view have defined "the field" so broadly as to include boys in jr. high school computer clubs. Well, to me at least, it's "obvious" that your logic there is faulty.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields".
        rhapsodic 9y ago
        > I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields". Even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Are you acknowledging that I have effectively provided that accounting? You should, but it's not clear to me that you have.
        rhapsodic 9y ago
        > Are you acknowledging that I have effectively provided that accounting? You should, but it's not clear to me that you have. Well, I think its noteworthy that you distinguished statistics from mathematics, but apparently felt automotive engineering (which I specifically asked about) to fall under ME, and you didn't comment on mining engineering, which does not fall under EE/ME. But for some reason, you seem to think it's meaningful, so I'll acknowledge that for the purposes of this discussion, you have indeed effectively provided that accounting. And I stand by my earlier response, to wit, that even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.
rhapsodic 9y ago
Here again, lots of upvotes for the parent, but the downvotes are currently winning by 2.

tptacek 9y ago

No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread, and now that I've taken the time to clarify it, you've decided to respond to an earlier comment I didn't write. If you'd like to keep discussing this with me, you're going to either have to rebut what I said, or acknowledge it.

rhapsodic 9y ago
> No, sorry, I'm not going to play Calvinball. You directly challenged a statement I made upthread Could you clarify? In every one of my replies to you in this thread, the part I quoted came directly from the post (of yours) to which I replied. And where did I directly challenge any of your statements? I think you have me mixed up with someone else who responded to you.
- tptacek 9y ago
  You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. You re-rebutted Rayiner's original comment without acknowledging mine. Acknowledge it or rebut it; don't pretend you didn't see it.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > You claimed that my statement about greater female participation in what turns out to be most of the rest of the stem fields was "so broad as to be meaningless". I responded in greater detail. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you thought naming a handful of other STEM fields along with a rough participation ratio made your premise any more meaningful. You seem to think that, from the fact that women participate in other STEM fields at a greater rate than CS, you can infer the reason they aren't well-represented in software development. To you, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them." And others who share your view have defined "the field" so broadly as to include boys in jr. high school computer clubs. Well, to me at least, it's "obvious" that your logic there is faulty.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields".
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        > I think you missed some subtext. That list of fields characterizes pretty much the whole of "STEM". It's not a "handful of other fields". Even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.
        tptacek 9y ago
        Are you acknowledging that I have effectively provided that accounting? You should, but it's not clear to me that you have.
        rhapsodic 9y ago
        > Are you acknowledging that I have effectively provided that accounting? You should, but it's not clear to me that you have. Well, I think its noteworthy that you distinguished statistics from mathematics, but apparently felt automotive engineering (which I specifically asked about) to fall under ME, and you didn't comment on mining engineering, which does not fall under EE/ME. But for some reason, you seem to think it's meaningful, so I'll acknowledge that for the purposes of this discussion, you have indeed effectively provided that accounting. And I stand by my earlier response, to wit, that even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.

rhapsodic 9y ago

Here again, lots of upvotes for the parent, but the downvotes are currently winning by 2.