| |||||||||||||
scientific?scientific?Posted Aug 9, 2005 15:17 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: Getting in touch with the feminine side of open source (NewsForge) by thompsot Parent article: Getting in touch with the feminine side of open source (NewsForge)
Scientific, psychological, and sociological research has already backed up a thousand times what we can all already see for ourselves, that men are generally attracted to the more concrete and logic oriented disciplines (not that men are all logical...), with programming being one example, and women generally are not. Um, my understanding is that no scientific study has ever established that this demographic trend is innately genetic (by which people usually seem to mean "unchangeable," although the expression of genes is dependent on environment) or if it is an artificial result of social pressures. It is the possibility (even the likelihood, given how much things have changed in the last half-century) of the latter case that leads people to ask: what could we be doing to discourage women from participating in this field, and is there any aspect of the environment that we should try to change? I don't see anything wrong with asking this question, and in doing our damnedest to improve matters. Unless, of course, you'd rather make unfounded speculations that there is nothing to do, and that we should be happy to have low expectations of women in science.
(Log in to post comments)
scientific? Posted Aug 9, 2005 16:20 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Whether it's biological, social, or a mix of both, why try to 'fix' something that isn't broken? Particularly when you don't understand it? This urge to 'social engineer' your fellow citizens into being more what you want them to be is what needs to be fixed, if you ask me. Experimenting on non-consenting humans should be illegal.
What is Broken Posted Aug 9, 2005 19:23 UTC (Tue) by swiftone (guest, #17420) [Link] "why try to 'fix' something that isn't broken?"If open source projects aren't benefitting from ~50% of the minds available, then something is broken. Of course, it's quite possible that many women contribute without bringing up their gender, because the men tend to overreact. (or drool, or patronize). In such a case it's not _attracting_ women that's the problem, it's learning to stop _discouraging_ them. Sadly, this article (and/or the panel) seems to focus on women not being attracted to the "technical side of things" rather than on the behavior they receive if they try. I've seen Allison Randal politely smile and change the subject when someone makes a suggestive comment to her, I've seen one or two other women on IRC or perlmonks do similar sidesteps with grace. I'm assuming many women with thinner skins or less patience are driven off, while men don't have to worry much about that sort of incident. Since the quality of your code has little to do with your ability to withstand streams of come-ons, the communities lose minds, and not necessarily minds of little value. That is what is broken. I don't need to understand how men and women are or are not functionally different to realize that every brain driven away for reasons other than the quality of their contribution is a waste.
What is Broken Posted Aug 9, 2005 23:02 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] If open source projects aren't benefitting from ~50% of the minds available, then something is broken. I think you'll find that women are "statistically under-represented" as the expression goes, not just in Open Source projects, but in computer programming in general. It was the notion that this is somehow a problem that needs to be fixed that raises my ire. Why is it so inconceivable to people that this is simply because most women don't want to do that sort of work? Why must it always be interpreted as evidence of some form of sexism, rather than simply the results of free choice? I know a few women that code, and they tend to be rather good at it, but most women, in my experience, just aren't interested. So they do other things they are interested in. Nothing there that needs to be fixed. Yes, some people do make stupid remarks and the like, and certainly, those people should learn manners. And it's quite possible that those people are over-represented among computer programmers, although my experience doesn't really agree. But I can't imagine that has much of an effect, except possibly to concentrate those women that enjoy coding a little more on the FOSS side, where they're less likely to have to interact face-to-face with their co-workers anyway.
What is Broken Posted Aug 10, 2005 1:25 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Why is it so inconceivable to people that this is simply because> most women don't want to do that sort of work? You're making an assumption there that most women don't want to do that sort of work *because* they're women. I accept that there is a greater proportion of boys than of girls who have a predisposition to technical and mathematical work. It certainly is not true of 100% of women who eventually choose not to do "that sort of work" that they make this choice because of their innate predispositions. There's good reason to believe that women leave the field more for social reasons than biological, and if the *society* is discouraging women who would otherwise excel in a traditionally male-dominated field, there's room for improvement. It isn't the software or engineering "community" in and of itself which needs fixing, though. Prejudices from all sides, from protective parents and gauche adolescent boys to peers to university and corporate management to governments and the Nobel selection committee, all contribute to keeping male-dominated occupations that way. Any little correction to that is a step in the right direction.
What is Broken Posted Aug 10, 2005 13:10 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] You're making an assumption there that most women don't want to do that sort of work *because* they're women. No, actually, I'm not. I've made no statement and have no definitive statement to give on the ultimate cause of the phenomenon, other than to state emphatically that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. I very much suspect that, like (nearly?) all macro-social statistics, we're looking at something with many, varied causes, not one big one. All I take exception to is the notion that a correllation here necessarily implies some nefarious sexist cause, or that an "under-representation" in one industry or another is prima facie evidence of some problem that needs to be fixed. Isn't it perfectly possible that, for whatever reasons, more women choose to do certain things, less others (and the same for men, who are quite under-represented in certain professions as well) without there being anything wrong with that fact?
What is Broken Posted Aug 11, 2005 4:35 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > I very much suspect that, like (nearly?) all macro-social> statistics, we're looking at something with many, varied > causes, not one big one. Of course that's true. And it's also completely misleading, because sexism isn't a minor, varied cause, it's a major, consistent one. Ask *any* woman entering a male-dominated field and she'll have a dozen stories to tell, of where her contribution has been belittled or overlooked. Slowly most other fields have lost their male-bastion reputation (if not their male-majority statistics) as women's abilities have been recognised. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the same won't eventually be true of software engineering. It is *strange* that sexism is still rife in engineering, which is full of highly intelligent individuals who understand complex systems. It's even more strange that it seems to be worse in free software, where we're all supposed to be freedom-loving progressive innovators. I see it as not only odd, but regrettable. > All I take exception to is the notion that a correllation here > necessarily implies some nefarious sexist cause, or that an > "under-representation" in one industry or another is prima facie > evidence of some problem that needs to be fixed. You're setting up a comfortable strawman for yourself by taking exception to a logical contradiction. No-one's arguing for a provable falsehood here. The prima facie evidence is not "under-representation" alone. There is a volume of anecdotal evidence that people are turned away (and all such evidence is necessarily anecdotal, statistics *can't* tell a story). Read the links. The problem is not statistical under-representation, it is individuals whose contributions, talents and personalities have been stifled. People who wish to correct the problem express it by saying the "under-representation" needs to be corrected, because increasing womens' participation in fields such as medicine has, along the way, reduced the amount of sexism and allowed many people to develop in ways they couldn't have if it were still presumed that medicine was a man's job. And as for "nefarious", most incidence of sexism isn't malicious in intent. Most sexist remarks aren't made with that intention. Much sexism is perpetrated by women, in the forms of maternal ambition, peer pressure and role modelling. There's nothing *wrong*, on the face of it, with being protective of a daughter, or complimenting a colleague on her appearance, or noting surprise when you see the unexpected -- or, for that matter, warning your best friend that she's in for a rough time. Yet each of these things, repeated from every direction over a long time, has a chilling effect. > Isn't it perfectly possible that, for whatever reasons, more > women choose to do certain things, less others (and the same > for men, who are quite under-represented in certain professions > as well) without there being anything wrong with that fact? Logically possible, yes. Consistent with the evidence, no. I'm not aware of men being "under-represented" in any occupation that pays a decent wage. They wouldn't tolerate it, so why should women? xoddam
What is Broken Posted Aug 12, 2005 7:42 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Ask *any* woman entering a male-dominated field and she'll have a dozen stories to tell, of where her contribution has been belittled or overlooked. Of course that's true, but you're also being misleading. Any man would have such stories as well. The prima facie evidence is not "under-representation" alone. There is a volume of anecdotal evidence that people are turned away (and all such evidence is necessarily anecdotal, statistics *can't* tell a story). Read the links. Yet I know women, personally, in the field, who don't agree with your analysis. Furthermore, even the anecdotes you point to often don't describe any sexism at all when I read them. And as for "nefarious", most incidence of sexism isn't malicious in intent. Most sexist remarks aren't made with that intention. Much sexism is perpetrated by women, in the forms of maternal ambition, peer pressure and role modelling. And this paragraph confirms what I suspected. Despite calling my description a straw man, you've just confirmed its accuracy. The problem is in your definitions. You're defining 'sexism' in a way that is absurdly broad, so of course you find it. When you extend the meaning of the word so incredibly far that it includes 'maternal ambition' and 'complimenting a colleague on her appearance' you're making my point for me. What you object to, it seems, is simply that people (both men and women) don't universally share your values and make decisions you approve of. So you want to socially-engineer your fellow citizens into better compliance with your idea of how they should be. And this is exactly what I was objecting to. Real instances of sexism do exist, and they deserve to be taken seriously. But what you're talking about is something entirely different, and quite bluntly, none of your business. When you weasel around with your definitions and make the latter sound like the former, you do a grave disservice to the real victims of the former.
What is Broken Posted Aug 15, 2005 8:09 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > Furthermore, even the anecdotes you point to often don't describe> any sexism at all when I read them. You are looking at mild versus grave expressions of a systemic bias. The dividing line is very subjective. Since you go so far as to deny there's a problem at all, I am not surprised that you don't see sexism where someone is pointing it out explicitly. ... > Real instances of sexism do exist, and they deserve to be taken > seriously. But what you're talking about is something entirely > different, and quite bluntly, none of your business. What I'm talking about is a systemic bias, and since I'm a part of the system of course it's my business. You acknowledge that there is a bias against women in engineering, but you say that I have no right to argue against it, because you know some women who aren't offended by its milder expressions. I'm not saying everyone ought to be offended by, and to rail against, the least offensive examples of that bias. I *do* say that it is possible and desirable to get past the point where one profession or another is thought of as a man's realm. > When you weasel around with your definitions and make [trivial > sexism] sound like [gross sexism], you do a grave disservice to > the real victims of [gross sexism]. When someone has been actively victimised, certainly she should have recourse other than to cry 'fix the system'. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't need fixing, nor that I'm weaselling. It is my firm opinion that a systemic bias is a bad thing, and that reducing the bias is the best way to help the large number of real victims -- whether they're in the personally-victimised minority, or have merely decided that fighting for recognition isn't worth the effort and they'll be happier in "feminine" occupations.
ad hominem Posted Aug 15, 2005 8:18 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > What you object to, it seems, is simply that people (both men> and women) don't universally share your values and make decisions > you approve of. So you want to socially-engineer your fellow > citizens into better compliance with your idea of how they > should be. Thanks for the psycho-political assessment. I'm no social engineer like Lenin or the Rockefellers, I just think it's worth proving a point when I see someone in denial. Basically this social change is already underway (what, a lady doctor? I couldn't possibly...), there's no fighting for me to do. I try to direct my political energies elsewhere. My turn. What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the world than to resign myself to injustice. Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested.
ad hominem is all on you man Posted Aug 15, 2005 9:43 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] Plus more straw men than you can shake a stick at. Rewriting all my quotes for me to change the meanings to match what you imagine I should have said was a nice touch. Makes it pretty clear you're incapable of giving ideas outside of a narrow band a fair hearing - you just rewrite them in your own head until they're what you know how to argue against. What you object to, it seems, is that my opinion is that the world isn't perfect and that my ethics lead me to prefer to improve the world than to resign myself to injustice. Not at all. What I object to is that you claim to have a right to judge other peoples 'maternal ambitions' for instance. Your inability to accept and honor the individual who chooses to live her life for herself, instead of for your idea of a perfect society. There is no 'perfect' at that level, because what's perfect for one person isn't perfect for another. This means that implementing one persons 'perfect' can only be done by implementing another persons 'hell' - until we learn to respect each other as individuals, rather than collective abstractions. Or, to put it another way, you need to figure out what 'justice' is before you start lecturing other people about 'injustice.' Since you seem to like the world the way it is, it appears that you would like anyone who points out a problem with it to go away and leave you to enjoy your privileged position unmolested. Another wonderful ad-hominen, with no more basis in reality than any of the rest. As a matter of fact, I have no privileged position, by your definitions I must be extremely oppressed. But it's your definitions that are broken.
would you like to step outside...? Posted Aug 16, 2005 10:10 UTC (Tue) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] It's a nice chat but lwn is not the place to sitand contradict one another. We're supposed to be polite, respectful, and informative and I think we just ceased to be any of those. Email me (fw_jon at xoddam dotnet) if you really want to explain how I've changed your meanings.
What is Broken Posted Aug 19, 2005 18:21 UTC (Fri) by randydeansmith (guest, #31956) [Link] I think you'll find that women are "statistically under-represented" as the expression goes, not just in Open Source projects, but in computer programming in general.Ah, but that's part of the whole point of the original discussion. IIRC, the original discussion centered on females participating as 2% of the OS community, while they were reported to be 25% of the overal SW dev community. (I was actually surprised by the 25% number! I didn't think it was that high.) So you see that what raises your ire wasn't the issue; it was the discrepancy of OS vs. overall that was the issue.
scientific? Posted Aug 9, 2005 16:26 UTC (Tue) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] my understanding is that no scientific study has ever established that this demographic trend is innately genetic (by which people usually seem to mean "unchangeable," although the expression of genes is dependent on environment) or if it is an artificial result of social pressures. There have been some studies done and evidence points both ways. Yes, there are gender roles in society. No those are not necessarily bad things. Yes there are genetic differences between men and women that predispose them differently. No that's not necessarily a bad thing. Studies have been conducted on young children (who it is presumed are less influenced by gender roles than older children and adults) and those studies have concluded that the brains of boys and girls develop different. IIRC, girls tend to develop speach easier, while boys tend to develop skills like counting and stacking blocks or LEGOS(TM) to make shapes more quickly. You cannot ever fully remove gender roles from our consciousness, but that does not mean that there aren't also biological traits present that influence men and women to take different paths in life. Indeed, it is entirely possible that our gender roles are greatly affected by biological forces. In short, I agree with the grand-parent in that ignoring biological differences is absurd, and that we should learn that such things are not necessarily bad. On the other hand, we shouldn't use that as an excuse to exclude women either, but I've not noticed any gender exclusion in the OSS community beyond the "You're a grrrrrrrrrrl?! That's awesome!" posts.
scientific? Posted Aug 9, 2005 23:13 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Studies have been conducted on young children (who it is presumed are less influenced by gender roles than older children and adults) and those studies have concluded that the brains of boys and girls develop different. IIRC, girls tend to develop speach easier, while boys tend to develop skills like counting and stacking blocks or LEGOS(TM) to make shapes more quickly.That presumption assumes that young children have no peer group and no parents, which is self-evidently absurd. As for `the brains of boys and girls develop different', well, there are neurological differences --- but nobody has a clue what effect those differences have, and presuming that they change the propensity of women for technical fields is arguing far in advance of the data. That could be purely social (inasmuch as `purely social' means anything with an organ as adaptable as the brain), or it could not, but so far I haven't found a single experiment which purports to determine that which didn't have enormous methodological flaws or (more often) simply wasn't testing what the experimenters thought it was testing. Further, note that all known differences between the mental abilities of men and women are differences between averages across populations, and that the range of normal variation in the population far exceeds those differences. I mean, I'm a male whose first words, at about the age most people are saying `mum', were `pneumatic lift'... yet who could not stack blocks at the age of eight. Does that mean I'm mentally female? I don't think so.
scientific? Posted Aug 9, 2005 23:49 UTC (Tue) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link]
No, it presumes that young children will be less influenced by peer groups and parental figures because they've had less time to develop ideas of gender roles. Whether that is true or not can certainly be argued.
What am I arguing is that we know there are differences, so ignoring the possibility that these differences could be greatly influential is foolish. Naturally I do not know for a fact that this is the case; no one does. However, evidence has been gathered to support the theory that biology at least has a significant role here.
Of course! No one has argued this point. It's self-evident that some people are far different from the mean. This is of course immaterial to the points being made. When we talk about women in computer programming, we are talking about a statistical minority. We can ask the question, "What makes these women choose this field?" or we can ask, "What women so much less likely than men to choose this profession?" I think the latter question is the more interesting, and the one more likely to yield statisticaly reliable information. After all, if there is something different about geek girls, looking at them won't tell us anything statistically worthwhile about all other women.
scientific? Posted Aug 11, 2005 12:34 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] Studies have been conducted on young children (who it is presumed are less influenced by gender roles than older children and adults)Have you been around small children and their parents much lately ? I have, being the father of a son aged 11 months, and being the one at home taking care of him. Yesterday, for example I was at the doctors with my son and we where waiting in the waiting room. Along with us was a mother and a son aged around 1.5 years. There's toys for the kids so they'll stay entertained. The son in question selected to play with a doll. This was *promptly* attacked by the mother: "Do you really want to play with that? Are you a girl?" It think it's very easy to underestimate how early some kids learn what "should" interest them and what is "unsuitable". The 1.5 year old couldn't even understand his mother (at that age he migth understand like a dozen words or so), but he understood very well that the mother was unhappy about his choise. So he played with a car instead, to hearty smiles from the mother.
scientific? Posted Aug 12, 2005 23:29 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Studies have been conducted on young children (who it is presumed are less influenced by gender roles than older children and adults)That's so preposterous, and irrelevant to the context, that I think it's just a misstatement. I think the presumption is probably just that a young brain has less gender role information in it than one that has been absorbing gender role information for 20 years, and therefore its organic development would be less influenced by said cultural influence and more by born-in factors. If you just want to talk about influence on the person, young children are probably more influenced by gender roles because they don't have the advanced reasoning and full body of information on which to make their own conclusions. At that age, you work strictly on simple association. I distinctly remember being shocked when I met my second school principal (Age 5), because he was a man. Why did I think it was unnatural for a school principal to be a man? Because the only other one I had ever known was a woman. Now getting back to the study, if you wanted to see how my brain processed school administration concepts without the variable of gender role influence, you would have to get to me before I met the first principal.
|
|||||||||||||