| |||||||||||||
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be consideringOK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be consideringPosted Aug 26, 2009 18:31 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)In reply to: OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering by BrucePerens Parent article: FSF to host a mini-summit on Women in Free Software
"I think we have to solve the overall problem with women in Science and Engineering to solve Free Software's problem. It's not all discrimination and bad jokes, or we would not have other minorities at the level that is currently represented. Some of it is what women grow up wanting to do and be."
While related...I don't think you can assume the same fundamental problems are at play between Science/Enginneering/FOSS.
Not all of the sciences show the problem to the same extent. Out of the big 3: biology, chemistry, physics...physics has a severe problem as measured by the number of women seeking and attaining advanced degrees. Even though in high school level physics coursework women typically out perform men in aggregate. Even inside physics...some subfields are doing better than others. Astronomy and astrophysics see more advanced degree earning women than other subfields. And then of course there are the interdisciplinary fields like ecology or geology which again i think have a less dire problem as measured by the breakdown of higher degree earners.
All of that is to say, I think you have to look much more closely and do some comparative studies across subfields if you want to use "science" as an example and look for what is attractive and what is not. Hopefully this summit will be bring forward some specific project examples that are bucking the general trend...and by analysing those projects...dispassionately...we'll have a better idea of how to change other projects to be more attractive.
-jef
(Log in to post comments)
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering Posted Aug 26, 2009 21:58 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I suspect the severe physics problem is overspill from maths, especially pure maths. If you want to see a field with a really low proportion of female members, almost as low as free software, look there. Cause: unknown, and people have been wondering for a century or so.
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering Posted Aug 26, 2009 22:47 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Cause unknown? Theoretical physics takes very intense concentration on really abstract mathematics. The folks who engage in it successfully are outliers as far as brain function is concerned. There is no reason to expect them to be regularly distributed across the population.
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering Posted Aug 27, 2009 21:38 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, but there is nothing but speculation that the extremes of mathematical ability may be gender-linked. There is essentially no actual evidence. It's the same degree of mystery as is that surrounding why most great mathematics is done by the young. (Cognitive decline? Maybe. Evidence? None.)
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering Posted Aug 28, 2009 5:59 UTC (Fri) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] A quick look at NSF statistics shows that in the US in 2006, women made up 31% of full-time mathematics graduate students, and 19% of full-time physics graduate students.Their mathematics numbers don't have a breakdown for pure vs. applied (probably because US universities tend to stick them both into a single department), so it might be more extreme in the pure side of things (maybe the answer is buried in HESA somewhere?), but the data that is available doesn't seem very supportive of a FOSS-level gender split in either field.
OK, I'll bite. Sides of this issue you might not be considering Posted Aug 29, 2009 22:52 UTC (Sat) by spzeidler (guest, #60508) [Link]
heh, it's not really -that- hard, if not exactly a stroll in the park.
You want to know why girls drop out of math?
Cue Barbie, "Math is haaAAaaard!" (as in, just don't make the effort, you're not really supposed to understand this, let alone have fun with it - even if you are better at it than most of the boys in your class, it's not girly to have a brain)
Plus "oh, you want to study physics? that's a strange subject for a girl" (as in, you're not a proper female if you are interested in that)
Those that survive all that active discouragement are either really good or really stubborn, or both, but on any account not lacking passion for their field. There are -so- -very- -many- easier ways to get to the same degree and the same level of income.
Much the same (if at a somewhat lesser degree) with women who go into IT; one doesn't wake up one morning, "oh what will I do with my life, hairdresser, secretary, bookkeeper, programmer? let's flip a coin", a young woman becomes a programmer in spite of 90% of her environment telling her she is nuts, and does it anyway.
regards,
|
|||||||||||||