3 ms·

You don't think the IT data disproves the more general hypothesis that females dislike working with computers ? Or that the data that females have the qualific

by ig1 16y ago

You don't think the IT data disproves the more general hypothesis that females dislike working with computers ? Or that the data that females have the qualifications to get onto CS degrees indicates it's not just an ability issue ?

jerf 16y ago
"Dislikes working with computers" is a new argument you just made; the article cited "Working with computers is a "solitary" activity which attracts more men than women", IT is not particularly a solitary activity in practice. Not like programming can be, though the solitariness seems overstated to me there too. It doesn't do anything to disprove the assertion that there is something about programming particularly distasteful to women, the real argument. (Which I am neither advancing nor attacking here.) Like I said, all this article "showed" was a reiteration that there are "no" women in programming. You can't get to causation from there. Besides, if you're going to argue that because women go into IT you can disprove some things, you need to take it all the way, not just use it to prove a couple of pet points then run away from the other implications, like the fact that there are obviously no systematic barriers to women in IT, and it seems rather unlikely to me that there are systematic barriers to programming occupations that don't exist in IT. Certainly I'd like to see one demonstrated rather than asserted if it's going to be the core of your argument. So using this same data we can plausibly argue that the data shows that there is something about programming that women legitimately of their own free will prefer on average not to do. This is not the argument I am advancing; if I were I'd be refining it a lot more. My point for this post is that there mere fact that I can use this data in favor of such an argument is proof that the data proves nothing. It's not enough. (Trying to disprove the previous paragraph in a reply would be entirely missing my point.)
jdp23 16y ago
I didn't think the article was vacuous at all; the A-level and GSCE data were very interesting. And I thought it was great that you included a section on "why it matters". On the other hand, you didn't really disprove the myths. So a different headline and organization might be helpful, focusing on your core arguments: A-level choices are a big contributor to the lack of women in computing; the number of women choosing math IT implies that it's not aversion to technology or math; GSCE and A-level scores imply that it's not a matter of ability. Then design your graphs to show that more clearly. And it would have been helpful to include references to other data supporting these points -- there's bunches of references at http://geekfeminism.org/2010/05/31/ask-a-geek-feminist-the-definitive-women-in-csstem-resource-thread/ http://geekfeminism.org/2010/05/31/ask-a-geek-feminist-the-d...

by ig1 16y ago

jerf 16y ago

"Dislikes working with computers" is a new argument you just made; the article cited "Working with computers is a "solitary" activity which attracts more men than women", IT is not particularly a solitary activity in practice. Not like programming can be, though the solitariness seems overstated to me there too. It doesn't do anything to disprove the assertion that there is something about programming particularly distasteful to women, the real argument. (Which I am neither advancing nor attacking here.) Like I said, all this article "showed" was a reiteration that there are "no" women in programming. You can't get to causation from there. Besides, if you're going to argue that because women go into IT you can disprove some things, you need to take it all the way, not just use it to prove a couple of pet points then run away from the other implications, like the fact that there are obviously no systematic barriers to women in IT, and it seems rather unlikely to me that there are systematic barriers to programming occupations that don't exist in IT. Certainly I'd like to see one demonstrated rather than asserted if it's going to be the core of your argument. So using this same data we can plausibly argue that the data shows that there is something about programming that women legitimately of their own free will prefer on average not to do. This is not the argument I am advancing; if I were I'd be refining it a lot more. My point for this post is that there mere fact that I can use this data in favor of such an argument is proof that the data proves nothing. It's not enough. (Trying to disprove the previous paragraph in a reply would be entirely missing my point.)

jdp23 16y ago

I didn't think the article was vacuous at all; the A-level and GSCE data were very interesting. And I thought it was great that you included a section on "why it matters". On the other hand, you didn't really disprove the myths. So a different headline and organization might be helpful, focusing on your core arguments: A-level choices are a big contributor to the lack of women in computing; the number of women choosing math IT implies that it's not aversion to technology or math; GSCE and A-level scores imply that it's not a matter of ability. Then design your graphs to show that more clearly. And it would have been helpful to include references to other data supporting these points -- there's bunches of references at http://geekfeminism.org/2010/05/31/ask-a-geek-feminist-the-definitive-women-in-csstem-resource-thread/ http://geekfeminism.org/2010/05/31/ask-a-geek-feminist-the-d...