Female Software Engineers May Be Even Scarcer Than We Thought 445
itwbennett writes "According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 about 22% of computer programmers, software and web developers in the United States were female. That number comes from the Current Population Survey, which is based on interviews with 60,000 households. But Tracy Chou, an engineer at Pinterest, thinks the number is actually much lower than that. And last month she created a GitHub project to collect data on how many females are employed full-time writing or architecting software. Even at this early point, the data is striking: Based on data reported for 107 companies, 438 of 3,594 engineers (12%) are female. Here's how some well-known companies stack up."
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Male elementary school teachers may be scarcer than we thought.
Who gives a shit?
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, this entire "study" is garbage. It is a self-selecting poll. So it doesn't "prove" there are fewer women, it just shows that men are more willing to fritter their time away on some stupid web poll.
This is a problem because....? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this particular case (male teachers) it is far more about the painting of all males as child molesters and rapists who cannot be trusted around children.
But yes, the huge feminisation of many aspects of society, including schooling, is a major factor. Most male teachers end up seeing their views ignored,
themselves patronised, and their care values bought in to question on a continual basis, basically to marginalize their position as a teacher.
After all, 'think of the children!'
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Male elementary school teachers may be scarcer than we thought.
After all, everyone knows there are only two kinds of people who love small children: female elementary school teachers and male pedophiles.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
"After all, everyone knows there are only two kinds of people who love small children: female elementary school teachers and male pedophiles."
I certainly hope you were being sarcastic. Because if we wanted to take your comment literally, then all fathers would be pedophiles.
On the other hand, it has certainly seemed as though society has been willing to look askance at any male who pays any attention to children. This is a problem in our society that I noticed over 20 years ago.
Hint, folks: treating an entire gender as though they are likely perverts is far worse than discrimination in employment. In fact, I would call that a perversion in itself.
Re:This is a problem because....? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get it. So women don't want to program. That's fine.
Do we know that? I sure don't know that.
Maybe its because computer studies, and software engineering is hostile to women. Do I know that? No, I don't know that either.
But if its true its something I'd want to know and correct.
Once upon a time there were no female politicians. Is that because "women weren't interested in politics?" Turns out, no, that was not the reason at all.
Maybe the sciences are the same. Maybe its got nothing to do with science.
Feminism is an outdated concept by this point
The idea that women need to be treated as equals is outdated?
Affirmative action, quotas, and other ugly blunt tools to try to force equality are outdated.. and were never good tools in the first place. But to say feminism is outdated is just ignorant.
and frankly, it doesn't apply to software engineering.
And that's no less ignorant. Many guys said the same thing about women and politics.
It's both arrogant and stupid to think somehow its different this time. Maybe women are genetically predisposed to dislike software/engineering... but that's going to take some more evidence than "because you said so".
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
But... Are there any social inequalities when it comes to female software engineers? Is the man somehow keeping chicks out of coding classes? Is the ol' boys club not allowing cooties to spoil their source?
You're looking at the end result and and claiming that there must be social inequality that lead to it. I understand this line of reasoning when it comes to the military, corporate CEO positions, and professional sports. They have a history of barring or diminishing women.
But engineering? Software engineering? Dude, during my time in academia I saw them bend over BACKWARDS to get girls into their program. Between the scholarships, special clubs, awareness programs, and general reports like this that stated more women needed to go be geeks. Even culturally, we geeks LOVE geek girls. It's a thing.
Now, it might be some sort of culturally imbued sexism. The sort that diverts men from being grade-school teachers and women from being truckers. There are plenty of counter-examples, but they're a minority. But it's not so much social inequality, so much as latent social norms and expectations. Breaking them doesn't get you burnt at the stake, but it might raise some eyebrows.
If you want to stop the NFL from being assholes to women, or to break that glass ceiling when it comes to corporate CEO positions, I'm all for that and you have my full support. But if you want to shape culture so that there's no stigma with being a male nurse or a female software engineer, that's getting a little close to the sort of fascism that demands we think a certain way. Your way. Sorry, but you just can't steer culture like that.
But hey, we need more female software engineers, because we need more software engineers. So I'm down with this sort of effort. But the lack of chicks around here has very little to do with social inequality. So don't get your panties in a twist.
Re:This is a problem because....? (Score:2, Insightful)
Feminism has nothing to do with equality, the moment it achieves equality, the feminist cry foul and change the rules. Feminism is a religious cult more than anything else.
When female privilege backfires [youtube.com] - watch this.
roman_mir [slashdot.org]
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Dropbox offers a file storage service that works across a myriad of wildly differing device types and platforms using native platform development. Not to mention they store many orders of magnitude more data than Reddit.
Meanwhile, Reddit only provides community-moderated plain-text discussion threads via a lightweight web interface.
Just because Reddit has more content that is specifically valuable to you, how do you make the jump to assume that what they're doing is on par or more difficult than what Dropbox does?
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point our society went from "leveling the playing the field" to "drastically changing the playing field to make the end-game scores the same". See, it doesn't matter that millions of years of evolution have resulted in some significant differences between males and females. It doesn't matter that there are already programs/scholarships to place to favor one group over another. It doesn't even matter if they can't find any specific examples of discrimination. The very fact that there are more of X than Y in a specific profession is reason enough to try to slant the playing field even further in an effort to make the end result the same.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, although this is eventually true of men too, from what I've seen.
Many males, by the time they're in their 40s and 50s, have moved on from coding to architecture, management, multifunctional roles like customer engineering liasons, highly specialized SWE roles like JVM optimization, or have switched careers altogether. Hard to compete with the young kids who'll work 12 hours a day for pizza.
In other words, by the time the women are ready to come back, the men (of the same age) aren't generally doing that work anymore either. So it wouldn't be appropriate for women to return to that role. The main difference is that men tend to stay with it longer, through the family years, where women bail sooner. And that's good. People gravitate to what they are intereted in, and where there is demand. It is a fact that women are better at raising young kids, and more importantly they want to do it more than men do. We all know it.
The sexes are not interchangeable. They can fill the same roles, because as a rule humans are remarkably adaptable and intelligence goes a long way to compensate for gaps in natural talent. But often, one or the other will be better precisely because of talent or interest. The edge may be small but it is still significant.
For example, I think women are better in roles where they are dealing with people, or in program manager type roles where there are a zillion little things to keep track of all at once. I don't understand why, but I often see this pattern, and I see that women often to a better job than men do in these roles. Women are better at staying home with small children; if society pushes them in that direction maybe its because there is good reason for it. Men are better at focused attention. You don't need studies to tell you this, it's everywhere, it's obvious to anyone with even a little intelligence or intuition. Of course women can be good software engineers, and depending on individual talent and interest, may be as good or better than men. Humans are varied. Some men excel at things that women are usually better at. And that's all good. But it is foolish and ignorant to pretend that there is no difference, that differences do not exist in the population as a whole.
Talent is extremely hard to measure, but interest and motivation are very easy to see. Personally I think that interest is far more important than talent. It goes back to that large brain thing. We can learn to be what we want to be. And in my opinion, most women don't want to do software engineering. Why should I care? Why they be forced to do what they don't want to do, in the name of political correctness? I thought modern society was all about giving women choice?
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. That is not an accurate translation. That is shaming language, the last resort of those backing the politically dominant yet outmoded popular position for emotional/self-interested reasons.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, but the demand that there be equal distributions everywhere is also part of the problem. It's a rather childish, simplistic, and dysfunctional worldview to have.. esp when forcing large tracts of society to comply with it via the law. All it does is breed more discrimination against those labeled as the 'oppressors' which in turn breeds actual, real contempt in that group for the protected 'victim' classes. ("She got the programming job? Was it achievement or politics?" instead of "She got the job, ok great I look forward to working with her")
Liberals always like to preach 'tolerance' and 'diversity' when they don't really understand the implications of the terms. 'Tolerance' of difference implies that things won't always be equal, that we are all individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, and so we are not interchangeable square pegs. Liberals are fine with this until it touches on race, gender, or sexual orientation, where we are expected to throw out any rational thought and assume that any imbalance is due to bigotry (instead of biology, or free choice, or life choices or..).. This is as irrational as the 'god hates fags' mantra of westboro baptist.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GP was referring to the reason given by many trainee male teachers for not wanting to go into primary schools. It's a major problem in the UK, with children lacking male role models. They spend a lot of their young lives at school so it is important.
We have had a long and relentless campaign against paedophiles, lead by newspapers. This is the result - our children are being harmed far more.