11 ms·

How not to attract women to coding: Make tech pink

32 points by timr 12y ago

tzs 12y ago
> Last month, Google announced its plan to spend $50 million over the next three years encouraging young women to give coding a try. The website for the project features articles about inspiring women, like Erica Kochi, who leads UNICEF's Innovation Unit. The first item on a page of coding projects for girls to try is a 3-D-printed bracelet. > "It's insulting, not only because it's highly gendered, but also because it perpetuates this idea of women as consumeristic and narcissistic," said Losh. "It's kind of like a trifecta of badness." Professor Losh needs to do some field research. A few hours hanging out in a mall or other place popular with young people will show that a large fraction of young women do in fact do seem to have quite an interest in jewelry. Including a 3D bracelet project sends the message to young women who have not considered coding that it can be a part of their current world. It's something they can apply to their lives, not something they have to change their lives in order to use. What's insulting is Losh's implicit assumption that women who wear bracelets must be doing it because they are narcissistic and consumeristic. Why can't they wear them for aesthetic reasons? Or sentimental reasons?
- detcader 12y ago
  Where do you think female interest in jewelry comes from? Are you implying that interest in jewelry is inborn in women? You are begging the question. The professor is concerned with general culture's image of women, which is perpetuated when female programmers are shown to be printing pink jewelry and perpetually enraptured by childish flowery borders. The existence of individual women who enjoy jewelry for the aesthetics are of no consequence to what the professor is concerned with. You are responding to an assumption that isn't there, but rather one you've imagined as a substitute for an understanding of the her social analysis. >"It says that the only way you can be interested in technology is if it is girly," said Wheat. "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have floral bedding. I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just don't like the idea of being pigeonholed."
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    "Are you implying that interest in jewelry is inborn in women?" This is an extremelly important question with regards to history of our species, so if you by some chance have an answer be sure to share it with us along with rationale.
    - detcader 12y ago
      It's not. Such a thing would be impossible. Look up "gender socialization" and read about girlhood: http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-been-living-theyve-been-performing http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-b... http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan/10/little-girls-deserve-better-toys-sexism http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan... http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-its-like-being-a-teen-girl http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-i... http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-smart-is-my-daughter-skinny/ http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-smart...
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        The articles you quote, while flamebait, don't try to answer the forementioned question. As for "impossible" - why?
        detcader 12y ago
        That women talking about being girls is "flamebait" says more about you than the articles.
      - spindritf 12y ago
        Why would a tendency to adorn oneself not be innate? Seems pretty universal to me. Why should nurture be the default assumption? I'm sorry but your answer is terrible, akin to "look up sexual selection and read about genetics."
        12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- informatimago 12y ago
  The whole discussion of women+tech is insulting! Guys weren't baby fed tech! They just grab it and have fun with it. Girls can grab it all the same: it's just knowledge. Computers and books are as available to girls as to boys. I don't say in the 70's when computer access was limited, perhaps boys could jostle to gain access to the computer console better than girls; but the reality is that at that time, girls would just shun and mock boys interested in computers: geeks and nerds never have been "popular". I'm not sure it has much changed for a long time, until they realized that big money could be made by some in computers. And even now, it only goes as far as how much money is made in computing. If you look at: http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/ You see that computing startups are the ones that are less likely to be still operating after 4 years (at 37%). Therefore I'm not surprised that girls are not interested in computing! If you want more girls in computing, then make it more profitable and more reliable. Eliminate the risk!
ivanca 12y ago
That other article in the front page: "Clicking Their Way to Outrage", this is exactly what it is talking about.
- detcader 12y ago
  Snark is the universal solvent of cultural conversation. - http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-hate-snark.html?zx=d79815f2a65eb868 http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-hate-snark.html...
- forgottenpass 12y ago
  Shhh. The only reason I'm reading the comments on this is for the drama.
detcader 12y ago
There's a difference between female people and femininity. Not all women are into femininity to significant degrees or to any degree, and some see it as a questionable social construction [1]. The women in the article are simply proposing that using extreme degrees of femininity to appeal to potential female programmers is not a sustainable campaign, given that that's not what the actual programming world is like. Role models do a lot more for children [2] [1] http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-nomakeupselfie-and-manupandmakeup%E2%80%AC/ http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-nomake... [2] http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-says-3-yr-old-girl/ http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-...
oillio 12y ago
From the article: "It seems so degrading," Wheat said. "If you're a girl interested in building websites, you're a 'web diva.' If you're a boy, you're a web developer." ------------------------------------- I have seen many a job posting looking for web ninjas, rockstars, and the like. Our industry has a history of being rather informal, and often catering to the narcissistic side of developers. Sometimes this is for the better, sometimes not (e.g. the "bro-grammer" bullshit recently). I personally have no interest in loosing our informal culture to the PC police.
- detcader 12y ago
  You are missing their point. "Ninjas" and "rockstars" aren't particularly gendered (they actually are and we both know it but who would be honest enough to admit such a thing?) but "diva" certainly is. The writer's problem is not the lack of formality -- is that really what you took away?
  - oillio 12y ago
    You just made my counter argument for me. Ninjas are definitely gendered. Yes, the argument is about formality. The claim is that "diva" is degrading because it is unprofessional and narcissistic, where "web developer" is gender neutral and professional. My point is, there are many many examples of non-gender neutral and unprofessional references in our industry. Diva is not degrading, it is targeting a specific audience, as is Ninja. We definitely have a gender imbalance in the industry. Should we be attacking those trying to rectifying the situation because they do not match your opinion on the extent that society should remain gender neutral?
    - detcader 12y ago
      How is that not taking liberties with interpretation? It's also possible that the writer simply feels that the industry (who said anything about "society"?) should strive to be gender neutral. More than one woman is referenced in the OP article and they have opinions that differ by nuanced degrees.
  - 12y ago
andrewflnr 12y ago
I like "don't make it pink" as a slogan to combat tech gender backlash nonsense. Love of math, beauty, and raw power are all universal, let's work on that angle. But at the same time, let's make sure we allow gender-specific themes from both sides to be involved, so we don't quash freedom of expression while at the same time not excluding... Never mind, it's probably going to take two generations to fix, regardless of what anyone says today. Society will figure all this out when a generation grows up in a time where this is all painfully obvious and not before.
thegeomaster 12y ago
I have this exact same problem. I see merchandise and slogans and whatnot targeting the "geek culture". I hate that stuff, the "witty" and "nerdy" T-shirts with stupid inner jokes about programming, I hate the "developer-targeted" ads with stereotypical geek talk I'm bombarded with, I hate all that, and would never want to be a part of it. I feel it's the same that these women get because tech is getting pink. But I respond to this by ignoring what annoys me. I don't feel offended when I, as someone who likes to program, is looked at through the eyes of these "geek" stereotypes. Why are these women so offended because someone is catering to some stereotypes that apply to women? I don't feel degraded when companies try to get me to purchase their VPS hosting by targeting me with ads that cater to stereotypes that apply to developers. This kind of stuff will always happen to almost all demographics. Quite honestly, from my position, I think this is overreacting. Of course I would love to see more women in tech, and I would do all I can to help that happen. But I think this is fighting a wrong fight. There ought to be some work on helping teenage girls overcome the stereotypes about tech they acquire in high school. But this just seems getting offended because of something that happens to everyone who is part of a certain demographic. I see that this kind of comment is strongly frowned upon, so if you downvote, please be so kind as to also reply to me and explain your viewpoint on this.
- hyperpape 12y ago
  Two things: first people are different, and "it doesn't bother me" doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't bother someone else. Second, and probably more importantly, there is an issue of scale. I find the Big Bang Theory stupid and obnoxious, but I don't think any stereotyping I've dealt with in my life matches what I hear about from friends of mine who are Black or women or Muslim. It's easier to be easygoing about things when you know that they won't really affect you.
  - thegeomaster 12y ago
    Yes, people are different, and you're right that when something doesn't bother me doesn't mean that it shouldn't bother anyone else. But we need to draw a line where a "this bothers me" said by someone is actually meaningful and not oversensitivity. I think we can agree on that one, because a world where small and harmless statements that are in no way degrading can be deemed "offensive" by a very small group of people and judged because of that, would be a chaos. Some reasonable threshold must be there. Reasonable, of course. We shouldn't also allow really offensive and malicious statements and viewpoints and actions to slip by. I cannot stress this enough. I can testify that people who are seen as geeks and/or nerds are very heavily stereotyped. I know I've been shaken off by a girl on one occasion when I mentioned my field of study, no joke. It's an extreme example, but the pendulum can swing both ways. But I didn't feel like the "female culture" was unwelcoming to programmers :) I just thought about how I met an isolated case of an idiot, and of course, that's how it is. I still haven't heard someone say or allude that women, or a woman, is intrinsically less capable with tech-related crafts. I believe, though, that there are people who think that way. But I at least hope they're isolated cases, and I believe that they will be met with scorn from others just as much as they would from me, and that their behavior won't be tolerated.
randunel 12y ago
I don't get one thing. If only 18% of the tech graduates are women, why do people (see wsj articles and random blogs) complain about companies "gender imbalance"[1] (not hiring 50% women and 50% men)? Wouldn't that be positive discrimination? As this article states, 18.2% of the graduates are women, but only 15% of the employees share the same gender, so the gap is 3.2%. Personally, I don't consider that 3.2% as being hugely discriminatory, but rather expected, see below. The problem starts even before formal education. In the country I was raised in, young women get an education which can be summarized by "get a husband to take care of you, cook and have his children". As long as parents have this mentality, their girls get no incentive to continue with college or anything technical, because this path is unknowingly inhibited since childhood. Most developed countries rely heavily on imported workforce, so a lot of Yahoo's and Google's employees come from countries where the percentage of women graduating in tech is far less than the 18.2% of women graduating in the US.
- detcader 12y ago
  That's a good point. Criticizing top tech companies is more marketable as journalism than doing deeper cultural analysis -- so you aren't going to see the women doing the deeper cultural analysis as often (though I would argue that this article does just that). You should read up on what feminists are writing lately.
- mrosethompson 12y ago
  Not necessarily. I'm not presenting this as fact, but merely as a a possible situation and counterexample to what you describe: Your reasoning would hold if you could assume identical skill distributions between men and women graduates. However, it seems somewhere between possible and likely that women graduates are of higher average skill than the men graduating. With so many barriers and cultural impedances for a woman pursuing tech, it takes at least the same skill (to pass the classes) as their male classmates, plus enough extra competency to ward off the detractors and skeptics that men don't have to deal with. Again, I'm not saying this is reality, I certainly don't have the statistics to back it up. But it fits my experiences pretty well, and I think your analysis probably is too simplistic to be useful. And, in regards to your second point, about starting much earlier: I absolutely agree. The more the culture changes, the less this will be an issue.
judk 12y ago
I don't know. NFL went pink and it attracted loads of female customers/fans. At any rate, pink isn't worse than black and red and shiny metal spinning razor blades and ninjas. It's another niche.
Mz 12y ago
Excerpt: To start, there were the pitches from college engineering programs in curly purple typeface accented by flowery images. She started to notice that many websites for budding female engineers are pink. Then there was the flyer for an after-school program hanging in a hallway of her high school. Printed on purple polka-dot paper, it read, "Are you a tech girl? Are you a web diva?" They aren't seriously doing this, are they? This is so gag-worthy. I am female and I like fashion and all that and I don't like polka dots. Nor am I big on wearing pink. I don't have an aversion to it but I certainly don't love it or something. I like "classic" fashion design. I thin if you have a STEM brain, you probably kind of have an engineer's sensibilities. Why would that be particularly different because of what is between your legs? geez.
taeric 12y ago
I find this quote interesting, "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have floral bedding. I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just don't like the idea of being pigeonholed." I don't necessarily like it when I'm incredibly pigeonholed, either. However, I'm genuinely at a loss as to the complaint of the title. If not pink, then what color? Would neon green suffice? What about puke? The article complained even about purple. Now, mayhap I'm wrong and there really isn't some effort at market testing different designs. But, if there are, and it is showing that pink is working... should they stop? A few data points showing that "girly" color selection is bad does not indicate that it fails at large. I say this as a man that likes the color pink. Used to have a few pink shirts that I wore so much they literally fell apart. Looking to get new ones. Do I wish more men were comfortable with pink? You bet. I genuinely cringe when I hear fellow parents bemoan their child's color choice. No matter what color it is. (Ok... I'll admit I would slightly regret puke green as a favorite color...) For my hypothesis, if you want to get more women in technology, you should work on making men and women more comfortable working together. This is especially tough on the stereotypical "geek" male. Heck, we have a hard time working together period. Add a woman to the mix and most of us lose it big time. Is it any wonder more of them don't wish to join us?

32 points by timr 12y ago

tzs 12y ago

> Last month, Google announced its plan to spend $50 million over the next three years encouraging young women to give coding a try. The website for the project features articles about inspiring women, like Erica Kochi, who leads UNICEF's Innovation Unit. The first item on a page of coding projects for girls to try is a 3-D-printed bracelet. > "It's insulting, not only because it's highly gendered, but also because it perpetuates this idea of women as consumeristic and narcissistic," said Losh. "It's kind of like a trifecta of badness." Professor Losh needs to do some field research. A few hours hanging out in a mall or other place popular with young people will show that a large fraction of young women do in fact do seem to have quite an interest in jewelry. Including a 3D bracelet project sends the message to young women who have not considered coding that it can be a part of their current world. It's something they can apply to their lives, not something they have to change their lives in order to use. What's insulting is Losh's implicit assumption that women who wear bracelets must be doing it because they are narcissistic and consumeristic. Why can't they wear them for aesthetic reasons? Or sentimental reasons?

detcader 12y ago
Where do you think female interest in jewelry comes from? Are you implying that interest in jewelry is inborn in women? You are begging the question. The professor is concerned with general culture's image of women, which is perpetuated when female programmers are shown to be printing pink jewelry and perpetually enraptured by childish flowery borders. The existence of individual women who enjoy jewelry for the aesthetics are of no consequence to what the professor is concerned with. You are responding to an assumption that isn't there, but rather one you've imagined as a substitute for an understanding of the her social analysis. >"It says that the only way you can be interested in technology is if it is girly," said Wheat. "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have floral bedding. I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just don't like the idea of being pigeonholed."
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  "Are you implying that interest in jewelry is inborn in women?" This is an extremelly important question with regards to history of our species, so if you by some chance have an answer be sure to share it with us along with rationale.
  - detcader 12y ago
    It's not. Such a thing would be impossible. Look up "gender socialization" and read about girlhood: http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-been-living-theyve-been-performing http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-b... http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan/10/little-girls-deserve-better-toys-sexism http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jan... http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-its-like-being-a-teen-girl http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-i... http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-smart-is-my-daughter-skinny/ http://rebeccahains.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/is-my-son-smart...
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      The articles you quote, while flamebait, don't try to answer the forementioned question. As for "impossible" - why?
      - detcader 12y ago
        That women talking about being girls is "flamebait" says more about you than the articles.
    - spindritf 12y ago
      Why would a tendency to adorn oneself not be innate? Seems pretty universal to me. Why should nurture be the default assumption? I'm sorry but your answer is terrible, akin to "look up sexual selection and read about genetics."
      - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
informatimago 12y ago
The whole discussion of women+tech is insulting! Guys weren't baby fed tech! They just grab it and have fun with it. Girls can grab it all the same: it's just knowledge. Computers and books are as available to girls as to boys. I don't say in the 70's when computer access was limited, perhaps boys could jostle to gain access to the computer console better than girls; but the reality is that at that time, girls would just shun and mock boys interested in computers: geeks and nerds never have been "popular". I'm not sure it has much changed for a long time, until they realized that big money could be made by some in computers. And even now, it only goes as far as how much money is made in computing. If you look at: http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/startup-failure-by-industry/ You see that computing startups are the ones that are less likely to be still operating after 4 years (at 37%). Therefore I'm not surprised that girls are not interested in computing! If you want more girls in computing, then make it more profitable and more reliable. Eliminate the risk!

ivanca 12y ago

That other article in the front page: "Clicking Their Way to Outrage", this is exactly what it is talking about.

detcader 12y ago
Snark is the universal solvent of cultural conversation. - http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-hate-snark.html?zx=d79815f2a65eb868 http://thatjohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-hate-snark.html...
forgottenpass 12y ago
Shhh. The only reason I'm reading the comments on this is for the drama.

detcader 12y ago

There's a difference between female people and femininity. Not all women are into femininity to significant degrees or to any degree, and some see it as a questionable social construction [1]. The women in the article are simply proposing that using extreme degrees of femininity to appeal to potential female programmers is not a sustainable campaign, given that that's not what the actual programming world is like. Role models do a lot more for children [2] [1] http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-nomakeupselfie-and-manupandmakeup%E2%80%AC/ http://feministcurrent.com/8789/femininity-is-no-joke-nomake... [2] http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-says-3-yr-old-girl/ http://reelgirl.com/2013/11/im-not-a-pilot-im-a-pilots-wife-...

oillio 12y ago

From the article: "It seems so degrading," Wheat said. "If you're a girl interested in building websites, you're a 'web diva.' If you're a boy, you're a web developer." ------------------------------------- I have seen many a job posting looking for web ninjas, rockstars, and the like. Our industry has a history of being rather informal, and often catering to the narcissistic side of developers. Sometimes this is for the better, sometimes not (e.g. the "bro-grammer" bullshit recently). I personally have no interest in loosing our informal culture to the PC police.

detcader 12y ago
You are missing their point. "Ninjas" and "rockstars" aren't particularly gendered (they actually are and we both know it but who would be honest enough to admit such a thing?) but "diva" certainly is. The writer's problem is not the lack of formality -- is that really what you took away?
- oillio 12y ago
  You just made my counter argument for me. Ninjas are definitely gendered. Yes, the argument is about formality. The claim is that "diva" is degrading because it is unprofessional and narcissistic, where "web developer" is gender neutral and professional. My point is, there are many many examples of non-gender neutral and unprofessional references in our industry. Diva is not degrading, it is targeting a specific audience, as is Ninja. We definitely have a gender imbalance in the industry. Should we be attacking those trying to rectifying the situation because they do not match your opinion on the extent that society should remain gender neutral?
  - detcader 12y ago
    How is that not taking liberties with interpretation? It's also possible that the writer simply feels that the industry (who said anything about "society"?) should strive to be gender neutral. More than one woman is referenced in the OP article and they have opinions that differ by nuanced degrees.
- 12y ago

andrewflnr 12y ago

I like "don't make it pink" as a slogan to combat tech gender backlash nonsense. Love of math, beauty, and raw power are all universal, let's work on that angle. But at the same time, let's make sure we allow gender-specific themes from both sides to be involved, so we don't quash freedom of expression while at the same time not excluding... Never mind, it's probably going to take two generations to fix, regardless of what anyone says today. Society will figure all this out when a generation grows up in a time where this is all painfully obvious and not before.

thegeomaster 12y ago

I have this exact same problem. I see merchandise and slogans and whatnot targeting the "geek culture". I hate that stuff, the "witty" and "nerdy" T-shirts with stupid inner jokes about programming, I hate the "developer-targeted" ads with stereotypical geek talk I'm bombarded with, I hate all that, and would never want to be a part of it. I feel it's the same that these women get because tech is getting pink. But I respond to this by ignoring what annoys me. I don't feel offended when I, as someone who likes to program, is looked at through the eyes of these "geek" stereotypes. Why are these women so offended because someone is catering to some stereotypes that apply to women? I don't feel degraded when companies try to get me to purchase their VPS hosting by targeting me with ads that cater to stereotypes that apply to developers. This kind of stuff will always happen to almost all demographics. Quite honestly, from my position, I think this is overreacting. Of course I would love to see more women in tech, and I would do all I can to help that happen. But I think this is fighting a wrong fight. There ought to be some work on helping teenage girls overcome the stereotypes about tech they acquire in high school. But this just seems getting offended because of something that happens to everyone who is part of a certain demographic. I see that this kind of comment is strongly frowned upon, so if you downvote, please be so kind as to also reply to me and explain your viewpoint on this.

hyperpape 12y ago
Two things: first people are different, and "it doesn't bother me" doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't bother someone else. Second, and probably more importantly, there is an issue of scale. I find the Big Bang Theory stupid and obnoxious, but I don't think any stereotyping I've dealt with in my life matches what I hear about from friends of mine who are Black or women or Muslim. It's easier to be easygoing about things when you know that they won't really affect you.
- thegeomaster 12y ago
  Yes, people are different, and you're right that when something doesn't bother me doesn't mean that it shouldn't bother anyone else. But we need to draw a line where a "this bothers me" said by someone is actually meaningful and not oversensitivity. I think we can agree on that one, because a world where small and harmless statements that are in no way degrading can be deemed "offensive" by a very small group of people and judged because of that, would be a chaos. Some reasonable threshold must be there. Reasonable, of course. We shouldn't also allow really offensive and malicious statements and viewpoints and actions to slip by. I cannot stress this enough. I can testify that people who are seen as geeks and/or nerds are very heavily stereotyped. I know I've been shaken off by a girl on one occasion when I mentioned my field of study, no joke. It's an extreme example, but the pendulum can swing both ways. But I didn't feel like the "female culture" was unwelcoming to programmers :) I just thought about how I met an isolated case of an idiot, and of course, that's how it is. I still haven't heard someone say or allude that women, or a woman, is intrinsically less capable with tech-related crafts. I believe, though, that there are people who think that way. But I at least hope they're isolated cases, and I believe that they will be met with scorn from others just as much as they would from me, and that their behavior won't be tolerated.

randunel 12y ago

I don't get one thing. If only 18% of the tech graduates are women, why do people (see wsj articles and random blogs) complain about companies "gender imbalance"[1] (not hiring 50% women and 50% men)? Wouldn't that be positive discrimination? As this article states, 18.2% of the graduates are women, but only 15% of the employees share the same gender, so the gap is 3.2%. Personally, I don't consider that 3.2% as being hugely discriminatory, but rather expected, see below. The problem starts even before formal education. In the country I was raised in, young women get an education which can be summarized by "get a husband to take care of you, cook and have his children". As long as parents have this mentality, their girls get no incentive to continue with college or anything technical, because this path is unknowingly inhibited since childhood. Most developed countries rely heavily on imported workforce, so a lot of Yahoo's and Google's employees come from countries where the percentage of women graduating in tech is far less than the 18.2% of women graduating in the US.

detcader 12y ago
That's a good point. Criticizing top tech companies is more marketable as journalism than doing deeper cultural analysis -- so you aren't going to see the women doing the deeper cultural analysis as often (though I would argue that this article does just that). You should read up on what feminists are writing lately.
mrosethompson 12y ago
Not necessarily. I'm not presenting this as fact, but merely as a a possible situation and counterexample to what you describe: Your reasoning would hold if you could assume identical skill distributions between men and women graduates. However, it seems somewhere between possible and likely that women graduates are of higher average skill than the men graduating. With so many barriers and cultural impedances for a woman pursuing tech, it takes at least the same skill (to pass the classes) as their male classmates, plus enough extra competency to ward off the detractors and skeptics that men don't have to deal with. Again, I'm not saying this is reality, I certainly don't have the statistics to back it up. But it fits my experiences pretty well, and I think your analysis probably is too simplistic to be useful. And, in regards to your second point, about starting much earlier: I absolutely agree. The more the culture changes, the less this will be an issue.

judk 12y ago

I don't know. NFL went pink and it attracted loads of female customers/fans. At any rate, pink isn't worse than black and red and shiny metal spinning razor blades and ninjas. It's another niche.

Mz 12y ago

Excerpt: To start, there were the pitches from college engineering programs in curly purple typeface accented by flowery images. She started to notice that many websites for budding female engineers are pink. Then there was the flyer for an after-school program hanging in a hallway of her high school. Printed on purple polka-dot paper, it read, "Are you a tech girl? Are you a web diva?" They aren't seriously doing this, are they? This is so gag-worthy. I am female and I like fashion and all that and I don't like polka dots. Nor am I big on wearing pink. I don't have an aversion to it but I certainly don't love it or something. I like "classic" fashion design. I thin if you have a STEM brain, you probably kind of have an engineer's sensibilities. Why would that be particularly different because of what is between your legs? geez.

taeric 12y ago

I find this quote interesting, "I'm very girly. My room is purple. I have floral bedding. I think I'll probably be a very feminine engineer. I just don't like the idea of being pigeonholed." I don't necessarily like it when I'm incredibly pigeonholed, either. However, I'm genuinely at a loss as to the complaint of the title. If not pink, then what color? Would neon green suffice? What about puke? The article complained even about purple. Now, mayhap I'm wrong and there really isn't some effort at market testing different designs. But, if there are, and it is showing that pink is working... should they stop? A few data points showing that "girly" color selection is bad does not indicate that it fails at large. I say this as a man that likes the color pink. Used to have a few pink shirts that I wore so much they literally fell apart. Looking to get new ones. Do I wish more men were comfortable with pink? You bet. I genuinely cringe when I hear fellow parents bemoan their child's color choice. No matter what color it is. (Ok... I'll admit I would slightly regret puke green as a favorite color...) For my hypothesis, if you want to get more women in technology, you should work on making men and women more comfortable working together. This is especially tough on the stereotypical "geek" male. Heck, we have a hard time working together period. Add a woman to the mix and most of us lose it big time. Is it any wonder more of them don't wish to join us?