4 ms·

Well, there's the investigation linked in the article [1]. This [2] is a review of various types of unconscious prejudices that people entertain and you could w

Well, there's the investigation linked in the article [1]. This [2] is a review of various types of unconscious prejudices that people entertain and you could well imagine what the consequences are for women. However, if you want experimental evidence, then Googling 'experiment gender discrimination' (leaving out 'for' or 'against' on purpose), yields plenty [3] of [4] studies [5] that support the common assertion that women are continuously being discriminated against. Admission to, and opportunities within, CS is simply no exception. I can't do any better than Googling it; that's what I did years ago when I was looking to verify that women really were being discriminated against, because I figured we would surely be past such barbaric behavior. Since then, I wised up on the fact that we're just not really that much in control of our behavior. I'm not a psychologist, but I do know how to find and apprehend research in such a domain. Meta-analysis studies are quite convenient :). [1] http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html [2] http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/1995_PsyRev.pdf http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/1995_PsyRev.pd... [3] http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/Orazem/darity_employment-disc.pdf http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/Orazem/darity_... [4] http://economics.uchicago.edu/download/JLISTdisc.pdf http://economics.uchicago.edu/download/JLISTdisc.pdf [5] http://www.tamu.edu/classes/psyc/payne/ID/ID%2520articles/Heilman%25202001.pdf http://www.tamu.edu/classes/psyc/payne/ID/ID%2520articles/He...

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Near as I can tell, [1] provides virtually no data beyond opinion polls, certainly none showing discrimination. [1] is also an advocacy piece written by people with a vested interest in finding discrimination, since it will get them more funding/chairs/office space/etc. [2] seems to be a review of psychology, but whatever data they have on discrimination seems to be buried deep within the article (I only skimmed it). I skimmed [3], but it seems to have virtually no data on women in computing at all, and what it has seems concerned primarily with the 90's or earlier. Then I gave up. I think you should read your sources before posting them. I don't see a single source which, e.g., shows women outperforming men at the same level, which would be fairly concrete proof of discrimination.
- Confusion 16y ago
  but it seems to have virtually no data on women in computing at all, Are you asserting that we need to experimentally verify discrimination in every single new context one can think of? Usually, we generalize from other research: there is no reason to suppose CS is miraculously free of discrimination against women, considering the variety of areas in which this kind of discrimination has been shown exist. I don't see a single source which, e.g., shows women outperforming men at the same level, [..] Why do you have to outperform others before you can be discriminated against? The fact that they are being discriminated against is in itself a reason why they are unlikely to outperform the others.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Usually, we generalize from other research: there is no reason to suppose CS is miraculously free of discrimination against women, considering the variety of areas in which this kind of discrimination has been shown exist. There is also no reason to assume that all or most of the gender gap is caused by discrimination. If we generalize, we discover that lots of other fields (e.g., medicine, law) have sexism, but they also have 50% women. Remember, we are asking what makes CS special. Why do you have to outperform others before you can be discriminated against? Suppose you are biased against green cars. You want to buy fast cars, and you generally only buy a car if it drives at least 80mph. However, since you hate green cars, green cars must drive at least at 100mph before you will consider buying one. Therefore, you will have plenty of slow (80-90mph) red cars, but your green cars will all drive at least as fast as 100mph. Substitute "women" for "green", "men" for "red", and "productivity" for "speed", and you'll see the same conclusion applies to workers.
    - Confusion 16y ago
      If we generalize, we discover that lots of other fields (e.g., medicine, law) have sexism, but they also have 50% women Firstly: in neither medicine, nor in law, are 50% of the graduate students women. Secondly: even when the number of students in the field is 50/50, that doesn't mean there is no discrimination. Here's a nice study about discrimination among students of medicine[1], the consequences of which you can guess. Remember, we are asking what makes CS special. No, that's what you are asking, because you assert that gender discrimination does not influence gender ratios in other studies and occupations, which is simply not true. Solely based on experimental observation of cognitive biases, it is extremely unlikely to be true. Women are always, everywhere, underrepresented in the top echelons. Even in nursing, there are more males in leadership roles than you would expect from the number of male nurses. [..] and you'll see the same conclusion applies to workers. Wait, what? The women have to perform better to be even considered and only if they are then rejected, then they are being discriminated against? It's the fact that they have to perform better in the first place that is the problem. You are already discriminating against green cars. That's the point. [1] http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2002/12000/Gender_Discrimination_and_Sexual_Harassment_in.18.pdf http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2002/12000/Gen... (BTW, I did an experiment here: I upvoted your comment some time ago. I have a feeling that in a discussion of 'score 1' comments, bumping one of them to '2' precipitates upvoting of the '2' and downvoting of the others)

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Near as I can tell, [1] provides virtually no data beyond opinion polls, certainly none showing discrimination. [1] is also an advocacy piece written by people with a vested interest in finding discrimination, since it will get them more funding/chairs/office space/etc. [2] seems to be a review of psychology, but whatever data they have on discrimination seems to be buried deep within the article (I only skimmed it). I skimmed [3], but it seems to have virtually no data on women in computing at all, and what it has seems concerned primarily with the 90's or earlier. Then I gave up. I think you should read your sources before posting them. I don't see a single source which, e.g., shows women outperforming men at the same level, which would be fairly concrete proof of discrimination.

Confusion 16y ago
but it seems to have virtually no data on women in computing at all, Are you asserting that we need to experimentally verify discrimination in every single new context one can think of? Usually, we generalize from other research: there is no reason to suppose CS is miraculously free of discrimination against women, considering the variety of areas in which this kind of discrimination has been shown exist. I don't see a single source which, e.g., shows women outperforming men at the same level, [..] Why do you have to outperform others before you can be discriminated against? The fact that they are being discriminated against is in itself a reason why they are unlikely to outperform the others.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Usually, we generalize from other research: there is no reason to suppose CS is miraculously free of discrimination against women, considering the variety of areas in which this kind of discrimination has been shown exist. There is also no reason to assume that all or most of the gender gap is caused by discrimination. If we generalize, we discover that lots of other fields (e.g., medicine, law) have sexism, but they also have 50% women. Remember, we are asking what makes CS special. Why do you have to outperform others before you can be discriminated against? Suppose you are biased against green cars. You want to buy fast cars, and you generally only buy a car if it drives at least 80mph. However, since you hate green cars, green cars must drive at least at 100mph before you will consider buying one. Therefore, you will have plenty of slow (80-90mph) red cars, but your green cars will all drive at least as fast as 100mph. Substitute "women" for "green", "men" for "red", and "productivity" for "speed", and you'll see the same conclusion applies to workers.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    If we generalize, we discover that lots of other fields (e.g., medicine, law) have sexism, but they also have 50% women Firstly: in neither medicine, nor in law, are 50% of the graduate students women. Secondly: even when the number of students in the field is 50/50, that doesn't mean there is no discrimination. Here's a nice study about discrimination among students of medicine[1], the consequences of which you can guess. Remember, we are asking what makes CS special. No, that's what you are asking, because you assert that gender discrimination does not influence gender ratios in other studies and occupations, which is simply not true. Solely based on experimental observation of cognitive biases, it is extremely unlikely to be true. Women are always, everywhere, underrepresented in the top echelons. Even in nursing, there are more males in leadership roles than you would expect from the number of male nurses. [..] and you'll see the same conclusion applies to workers. Wait, what? The women have to perform better to be even considered and only if they are then rejected, then they are being discriminated against? It's the fact that they have to perform better in the first place that is the problem. You are already discriminating against green cars. That's the point. [1] http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2002/12000/Gender_Discrimination_and_Sexual_Harassment_in.18.pdf http://pdfs.journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/2002/12000/Gen... (BTW, I did an experiment here: I upvoted your comment some time ago. I have a feeling that in a discussion of 'score 1' comments, bumping one of them to '2' precipitates upvoting of the '2' and downvoting of the others)