I'm glad you have concerns about programming as a field and I feel as though they are valid. It's not my fight, though, so I wish you luck. I agree it isn't equ

I'm glad you have concerns about programming as a field and I feel as though they are valid. It's not my fight, though, so I wish you luck. I agree it isn't equal, in many definitions of the word, but I wouldn't necessarily associate it with manly or womanly in terms of sexuality/identity. It's simply a field. A field that has, up until now, been primarily men and perhaps even primarily negative men and perhaps, again, men who are negative towards women because they are insecure about it. I think it says more about them than the field, but I could be wrong. I still stand by the thought that programming is inherently nothing other than a field, ripe for societies to use or abuse as they will. I could say the same about any field, teaching children I guess is the opposite at least in terms of number by gender. Not sure what the large, burly man colleague of yours has to do with my point, though. He could be a four foot tall waif and I wouldn't think any differently of the field. I work with many said waifs and I make no distinction. Sexuality, as I've found, can be fluid even within the boundaries of something like being straight. Your bottom line is interesting, but mine is more or less, "Don't feel bad about falling short of something you have complete control of." There's no reason to feel as though you need to live up to some definition of sexuality when it involves identity. Carve your own identity. It isn't easy, and it isn't straightforward, but I trust humans to be more than simple creatures.