12 ms·

Measurement is easy. Just look around you. The majority of people working in tech are men. An even larger majority of its leadership is men. Why is this? Ther

by beat 9y ago

Measurement is easy. Just look around you. The majority of people working in tech are men. An even larger majority of its leadership is men. Why is this? There are only two possible causes that I can see - genetic, or cultural. The genetic argument is basically that men are, by nature, better at being programmers and leaders than women - that women are inferior. The cultural argument is that there is a social advantage to being male (and a social disadvantage to being female) - that, all else being equal, things tend to default in favor of men. Personally, I reject the genetic explanation. Most people do. If you also reject it, then you're stuck with the cultural explanation, or finding something I haven't come up with.

fvdessen 9y ago
Could it be that the cultural problem is the low social status of IT Work ?
- etjossem 9y ago
  Lawyers have about the same gender breakdown as computer systems analysts, so I don't think this is the case. CEOs are even more predominantly male, at a fairly shocking 73% by 2016 numbers (we'll have '17 soon). The problem with tech in particular is that we're often viewed as an inclusive and progressive industry. But when you run the numbers, we're no better than the law firms.
- beat 9y ago
  That seems unlikely, considering that you see similar issues in high-status work, such as business executives or politicians.
- brucephillips 9y ago
  How does IT work have low social status?
adventured 9y ago
So your argument is that men and women are exactly identical on all tasks for genetic purposes? Or are you arguing that such just happens to be the case as it pertains to programming? From my observation, women are frequently proclaimed to be superior to men in numerous ways. My entire life I've heard that women mature faster than men. Women are proclaimed to be more nurturing. Women have higher 'emotional intelligence.' You'll see it almost universally proclaimed that if women ran the world, conflicts (eg war) would be far less common, this is a constant refrain in the US across all media. There are very well understood differences between men and women when it comes to things like vision, physical strength, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, physical aggression, and so on. We also have many different health risks due to our genetic differences. All of these things add up to women universally living longer from one culture to the next, and women commiting drastically fewer acts of violence (and thus making up a far smaller percentage of the prison population). If any of that is actually true, why can't men be superior at various tasks due to genetic differences? Why not programming? What I'm asking is: what's the scientific argument to say that men are not superior at programming, how can that be proven either direction? Just saying such is the case (either direction), is not enough.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  Where women outperform men, that’s science. Where men outperform women, that’s sexism.
weberc2 9y ago
Genetics could explain the disparity without resorting to a "women are inferior" conclusion. For example, it's possible that the ability distribution is more varied for men than for women such that if you sample from either extreme, you'll find more men, and if you sample from the middle, you'll find more women. Employers obviously prefer to sample programmers and leaders from the high-ability extreme, and therefore end up with more males. However, the mean and median could be the same for men and women. There are other hypotheses as well that have nothing to do with social advantages--maybe biology or culture has women preferring to elect into other career fields? We also know that (for whatever reason) women prefer flexible careers that let them spend time with kids, and that women are more likely than men to take time off to start a family and that they take more time off than men to start the family. Perhaps men and women are equal in their desire to spend time with family, but society expects men to sacrifice time with family to provide for the family? In this case, the disparity is the result of a social disadvantage to being male. These are just a few hypotheses that I could come up with in a few moments. Some of these I think are probable and others improbable, but the point is that we have more hypotheses besides misogyny and patriarchy. We shouldn't feel the need to buy into the patriarchy explanation simply to avoid the misogyny explanation (especially because the people who favor the patriarchy explanation also tend to propose some scary reforms, like restricting due process rights for one gender).
- beat 9y ago
  This isn't Lake Wobegon. Not all the children are above average. You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. And the male/female representation ratios are different, as well. Consider historic example, as well. Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago? At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > Not all the children are above average. They don't have to be. Only the majority, and I have a hard time believing that the majority of software engineers and leaders are of average capability or worse. I'm open to data to the contrary, however. > You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. Not sure what your point is here. Are you implying that because there are racial disparities as well, then both gender and racial disparities must have a common cause? That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what else to make of this. > Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago? No. I made no claims about the cause of disparities a century ago. > At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor. Good. Then let's hold off on the elaborate conspiracy theories until we can invalidate the simpler explanations, eh?
thg 9y ago
"The real reason why there are so fewer women in tech isn’t because of discrimination, harassment or unequal pay (although like I said these factors do exist and need to be fixed). The real reason is that most women clearly aren’t as interested in technology-related work as men are. It’s a choice. And for whatever reasons, more women seem to choose other fields." https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/the-real-reason-most-women-dont-go-into-tech/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/th...
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  I'm sorry but that is a very intellectually dishonest passage. There is real concern that women may be turned away fom technology careers because of cultural bias that says those jobs are not for women. And the answer to that is that "maybe they're just not interested"? Well- how do you explain the fact that "they're just not interested"? Why is cultural bias not an explanation of this lack of interest? And if it isn't, then what is? You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like. At some point we have to figure out why girls are not into technology as much as boys are and it's very lazy to just dismiss it as "not a girl thing".
  - thg 9y ago
    There are real genetic differences in how the brains of men and women work. Men and women do not have the same interests, the same goals, nor the same desires. To claim otherwise is ignoring established scientific facts. Studies on this subject always lead to the same conclusion: That women are just less interested in tech jobs, just as men are less interested in social jobs.[0] I presented the OP with a objective, data-based argument and limited myself to quoting only the article (of which there are many, many, many more I could have chosen from) exactly to avoid a subjective response like yours. I am not interested in ideological discussions about purely subjective arguments (Read: flamewars). You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that. [0]: https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occupations-since-1950/ https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occu...
brucephillips 9y ago
There's a third, which is that women are, on average, less interested in being programmers.

by beat 9y ago

fvdessen 9y ago

Could it be that the cultural problem is the low social status of IT Work ?

etjossem 9y ago
Lawyers have about the same gender breakdown as computer systems analysts, so I don't think this is the case. CEOs are even more predominantly male, at a fairly shocking 73% by 2016 numbers (we'll have '17 soon). The problem with tech in particular is that we're often viewed as an inclusive and progressive industry. But when you run the numbers, we're no better than the law firms.
beat 9y ago
That seems unlikely, considering that you see similar issues in high-status work, such as business executives or politicians.
brucephillips 9y ago
How does IT work have low social status?

adventured 9y ago

So your argument is that men and women are exactly identical on all tasks for genetic purposes? Or are you arguing that such just happens to be the case as it pertains to programming? From my observation, women are frequently proclaimed to be superior to men in numerous ways. My entire life I've heard that women mature faster than men. Women are proclaimed to be more nurturing. Women have higher 'emotional intelligence.' You'll see it almost universally proclaimed that if women ran the world, conflicts (eg war) would be far less common, this is a constant refrain in the US across all media. There are very well understood differences between men and women when it comes to things like vision, physical strength, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, physical aggression, and so on. We also have many different health risks due to our genetic differences. All of these things add up to women universally living longer from one culture to the next, and women commiting drastically fewer acts of violence (and thus making up a far smaller percentage of the prison population). If any of that is actually true, why can't men be superior at various tasks due to genetic differences? Why not programming? What I'm asking is: what's the scientific argument to say that men are not superior at programming, how can that be proven either direction? Just saying such is the case (either direction), is not enough.

didgeoridoo 9y ago
Where women outperform men, that’s science. Where men outperform women, that’s sexism.

weberc2 9y ago

Genetics could explain the disparity without resorting to a "women are inferior" conclusion. For example, it's possible that the ability distribution is more varied for men than for women such that if you sample from either extreme, you'll find more men, and if you sample from the middle, you'll find more women. Employers obviously prefer to sample programmers and leaders from the high-ability extreme, and therefore end up with more males. However, the mean and median could be the same for men and women. There are other hypotheses as well that have nothing to do with social advantages--maybe biology or culture has women preferring to elect into other career fields? We also know that (for whatever reason) women prefer flexible careers that let them spend time with kids, and that women are more likely than men to take time off to start a family and that they take more time off than men to start the family. Perhaps men and women are equal in their desire to spend time with family, but society expects men to sacrifice time with family to provide for the family? In this case, the disparity is the result of a social disadvantage to being male. These are just a few hypotheses that I could come up with in a few moments. Some of these I think are probable and others improbable, but the point is that we have more hypotheses besides misogyny and patriarchy. We shouldn't feel the need to buy into the patriarchy explanation simply to avoid the misogyny explanation (especially because the people who favor the patriarchy explanation also tend to propose some scary reforms, like restricting due process rights for one gender).

beat 9y ago
This isn't Lake Wobegon. Not all the children are above average. You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. And the male/female representation ratios are different, as well. Consider historic example, as well. Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago? At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor.
- weberc2 9y ago
  > Not all the children are above average. They don't have to be. Only the majority, and I have a hard time believing that the majority of software engineers and leaders are of average capability or worse. I'm open to data to the contrary, however. > You can cut this cake a different way, too... race. White people are overrepresented (or non-whites are underrepresented) in IT, and in high-status jobs. Not sure what your point is here. Are you implying that because there are racial disparities as well, then both gender and racial disparities must have a common cause? That's obviously fallacious, but I don't know what else to make of this. > Right now, women are significantly underrepresented as CEOs and senators. But a century ago, there were no women CEOs or senators. Are women less genetically inclined to their "proper" path as homemakers now than they were a century ago? No. I made no claims about the cause of disparities a century ago. > At a certain point, I start cutting the cake with Occam's Razor. Good. Then let's hold off on the elaborate conspiracy theories until we can invalidate the simpler explanations, eh?

thg 9y ago

"The real reason why there are so fewer women in tech isn’t because of discrimination, harassment or unequal pay (although like I said these factors do exist and need to be fixed). The real reason is that most women clearly aren’t as interested in technology-related work as men are. It’s a choice. And for whatever reasons, more women seem to choose other fields." https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/the-real-reason-most-women-dont-go-into-tech/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2015/03/16/th...

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
I'm sorry but that is a very intellectually dishonest passage. There is real concern that women may be turned away fom technology careers because of cultural bias that says those jobs are not for women. And the answer to that is that "maybe they're just not interested"? Well- how do you explain the fact that "they're just not interested"? Why is cultural bias not an explanation of this lack of interest? And if it isn't, then what is? You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like. At some point we have to figure out why girls are not into technology as much as boys are and it's very lazy to just dismiss it as "not a girl thing".
- thg 9y ago
  There are real genetic differences in how the brains of men and women work. Men and women do not have the same interests, the same goals, nor the same desires. To claim otherwise is ignoring established scientific facts. Studies on this subject always lead to the same conclusion: That women are just less interested in tech jobs, just as men are less interested in social jobs.[0] I presented the OP with a objective, data-based argument and limited myself to quoting only the article (of which there are many, many, many more I could have chosen from) exactly to avoid a subjective response like yours. I am not interested in ideological discussions about purely subjective arguments (Read: flamewars). You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that. [0]: https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occupations-since-1950/ https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occu...

brucephillips 9y ago

There's a third, which is that women are, on average, less interested in being programmers.