That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%.
Thus, advertising.
We're trying to fix the advertising.
Fixing the culture of tech and the role of gender in our society more broadly is a major part of what's needed to deal with these issues. And part of that is helping some women--and mean--realize that they want to be in tech despite false impressions they have about their abilities and what working in tech means.
How come there's no big outcry to equalize nursing so that men are 50% of the field? How about teaching, women also dominate that field.
Women outnumber men 2 to 1 in high school teaching. They account for 85% of all primary school teachers.
No outcries to equalize those numbers?
Must be sexism in high school teacher hiring.
Must be sexism in nursing hiring.
Must be sexism in primary school hiring.
Oh wait, there could be other explanations.
Disqualifying half the population will reduce the quality of the selection you can make.
The quality of teachers is of critical importance to the effectiveness of education. The effectiveness of education is critical to equality, social cohesion and economic growth.
Actual evidence of sexism in hiring is more persuasive of the presence of sexism, than the ratio of people employed. A standard way to study this is to send out a bunch or resumes in which only the gender changes.
I think there are sexist social pressures on men which reduce their desire to become nurses.
Tech doesn't require a degree - it's a field anyone with a free evening can pick up. It also bears a significantly broader scope than nursing or teaching.
And yet here we are, wondering why so many programmers don't seem to have the skills they need in the profession.
How is that relevant?
I don't know, I can only guess. You can see my guess below.
> Do you think it's because women are inherently much less interested in tech? Or do you think it's because our society imposes stereotypes and values on women, and gives very "macho" impressions?
It's probably a combination of both, I'm not ruling out either case (or even getting close to ruling out either case).
I feel like too many people are ruling out the former entirely (or just not realizing it's a possibility altogether) which doesn't make sense. You have to keep both in mind, and realize that your goal isn't an absolute 50%, it's the natural ratio, which may of course change over time.
Divide the number of women who want to be in tech by the number of people who want to be in tech and you have the ratio.
But yes, we obviously have to do some work to figure out the numbers.
Just curious, why not? There are many obvious physical differences between men and women, why not mental as well?
You can think of it in terms of Maslow's Pyramid.
Societies at the top of the pyramid are filled with individuals that no longer need to take the highest paying jobs, but can now take jobs that uniquely fulfill their interests and desires. And it could very well be that taken as two bell curves, the interests of women are different from the interests of men, two overlapping bell curves, but with different means, and different variances. Concluding that try as hard as you might, it just may be that women do not want to work in tech and preferentially prefer different sorts of occupation.
There's a story about boxing in America, and that is as various poor immigrant groups came to America, they each in their time rose to the tops of boxing. The Irish, the Jews, the Italians, & the African Americans. These groups saw boxing as a way to rise above their income levels. And as the various groups either assimilated or as a group rose above their resources, their interest in boxing waned.
http://voices.yahoo.com/ethnic-boxers-america-part-i-105696....
Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, boxing has been a sport dominated by men of meager means and questionable sanity. Who in their right mind would choose to pursue an occupation in which you expose yourself to habitual beatings? Such a calling speaks to men who possess an overabundance of rage, and a dearth of opportunities. Historically, ghettoes are the environment most likely to produce such men. These are neighborhoods where too many people compete for too few resources, and the inhabitants face daily frustrations more profound than those known by more prosperous men.
Something similar could be happening in tech as women in general might prefer occupations that are more female friendly, more family friendly, more human centric, more social, etc., like medicine, or law.
I am explaining this theory, I am not necessarily supporting it. I have no idea why their is a dearth of women in programming. I know in the places I have worked, as a whole there are many women who are often lead developers and managers.
If you're referring to Simon, the psychological researcher, that would be his cousin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen#Personal_life...
We've started at that point many years ago; we should be trying to refine our easy first-order approximations instead of living with them forever.
That's a bad idea -- it would stigmatize those who entered the field by such a program that they were given their positions, rather then earning them. The same problem exists in race relations, where equality by law conceals equality by merit.
Women are fully qualified to take their place in science and tech -- that's well-understood -- but to force equal numbers would obscure the fact that women can easily earn their place in science and tech.
Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech."
How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech.
The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
By changing people's attitudes.
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.
> By changing people's attitudes.
Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.
Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.
The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.
Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
Also, you say:
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field.
Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.
Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone.
My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.
Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.
The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.
Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said:
"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech."
Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.
Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351
So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?
I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.
My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.
That's called being respectful of the views of others, and not presuming to interpret their words in any way one chooses.
> I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.
I have a better idea -- say exactly what you mean. Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.
The problem with leaving interpretation of your words to others, is they will interpret your words in ways you didn't intend.
I never assumed; I simply hoped it would be the case. Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant, I already made my point so if you end up missing it that's perfectly fine with me.
Want to communicate? Communicate. Use words that have universally accepted meanings. Stop assuming that others will or must fill in your blanks for you.
So far, you've tried and failed to argue that incoherence is a virtue and your communications breakdowns are the fault of others. Sorry -- no sale.
> I already made my point ...
The only point you've made is that you haven't made your point -- instead, you assign to others the responsibility for decoding the things you didn't say.
> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
Doesn't your use of the phrase "unfairly exclude" imply a narrowing of the scope down from "all people who want tech jobs" to "all qualified people who want tech jobs", since excluding unqualified people is fair? I don't understand why now you are arguing that you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption. This statement implies that you did.
Am I missing something?
Why did I post? To emphasize that the OP is encouraging a no-standard standard. My reply adds the requirement that the people be qualified, as opposed to the idea that, as in the OP's original post, everyone who wants a tech position should get one.
My posts emphasize the opposite of what you claim.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. Here is the original content:
"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech.
That's the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%."
No mention of the qualifications of the candidates, only their number, their gender, and their wish to be in tech. It's a competence-blind standard. So I objected. Now I hear that I should have used my psychic abilities to divine the OP's real meaning.
> you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption.
The OP's "implied assumption" is not my responsibility, but that of the originator.
Effective communication starts with ... wait for it ... saying what you mean, and leaving nothing to the imagination. If a reader can reply and say, "Wait ... did you actually mean ...", then something is wrong.
Here's the key phrase:
" ... equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech ..."
If the OP really meant to specify qualified people, she should have said " ... correct the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech by including people qualified to be in tech but unfairly excluded..." or other similar wording.
To assume rather than to specify is to make the classic error of assuming everyone has the same values and attitudes. If that were true, there would be no need to try to communicate ideas.