[coffeandcode]

I don't think the article was really putting socially awkward white males to blame. I believe it tried to say that the diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job. And this accumulated over time reinforcing the notion until recently that it's sort of a no girls land. I can't help but feel that you're kinda shifting the blame when you say that there are just not enough female candidates otherwise you'd be perfectly happy to hire them and of course you would be. Maybe the problem really is in the way career possibilities are presented to children from early on. My brother is a programmer with years of experience - he got a pc when very young that I really didn't have access to and he was making fun of me when I got into a coding job because I it didn't really suit me, even though I have a CS degree. That doesn't mean he is to blame, it's just how we are brought up. Arts and humanities go girls, STEM go boys.

[blah5432]

diversity (or lack of it) of the field is a result of the shift in targeting a certain type of person for the programmer's job

Based on... which facts exactly?

Edit: As far as I can see, the picture is that there's a bunch of socially inept males that some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay.

This is utterly ridiculous, no matter which amount of social science "evidence" you put into it. I'll be retired by then, but I'm pretty sure enough time will put this crazy notion to rest.

[coffeandcode]

"some shadowy powers carefully select to make a mysoginistic getto to keep women at bay."

While some may claim this, it is not stated in the article at all and I don't think this is a mainstream opinion. Also the article actually gave detail about this shift in targeting with the SDC recruiting procedure - and it is clear it was about optimising the work environment - and not to exclude women. This also coincided with the rise of the PC which was targeted at boys - again because they thought they would increase their profits, not because they don't like girls messing with the boy hobbies (it even sounds ridiculous). As I mentioned in my first comment, what we have as a result is not everyone gets equal exposure to computers in similar conditions based on their gender and hence fewer women end up interested in the field.

[blah5432]

The "detail" is so vague as to not deserve that name. Give me a ten minutes description of the described environment and I will give you a dozen alternative explanation to the especulation presented in the article.

This is no more than coach psicology.

[icebraining]

shadowy powers carefully select

I don't think anyone's claiming that.

[mpweiher]

Actually, that is exactly the claim.

For example, the book "The Computer Boys Take Over" quoted all over in TFA claims that the drive to "professionalize" programming and make it more "engineering like" was specifically to drive women out, after men found out the profession was gaining status and money in the late 70ies and early 80ies.

Which is ridiculous on so many fronts, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. And of course makes me not give too much credit to anyone basing their argument on that book.

[icebraining]

Oh, fair enough, I understood a different thesis from the article (of a self-reinforcing stereotype among employers).

[blah5432]

This is a blame game. It's tried on individuals. When they reject accusations, there's the "you are biased even if you don't realize" and then the "you are a tool in the hands of an oppressing society". If you can't convince, at least seed the doubt.

Have you seen what happens when there are no employers? Open source projects, I mean. It's qualified then as a "toxic culture" with "ambient pressure", "terrified women" and so on.

There is a handful of nonsense viruses that survive and flourish in the interwebs, concepts that are instantly rejected as absurd but have enough followers to keep then alive for years. Either you detect them early or you will be pushed by peer pressure (until the fad goes away).

Unfortunately the clear feeling that something is totally wrong and backwards (like EU defending Samsumg right to push its crap instead of Google apps) fades very quickly to propaganda.

[mpweiher]

> "you are biased even if you don't realise"

Yes. For example, I looked at some online "implicit bias" test from some well-respected university. Well, started to take.

One of the first questions was whether I associated "black" (in general) with sports. I do. It was obvious that answering truthfully was going to dramatically up my "implicit bias" score.

But I don't do this because I am biased, I do this because my lived experience tells me this association is a true reflection of the world. I was on my high school's track team. In a school that was (guessing) >90% white, I was the only white guy on the sprint relay team. When going to the next level (county championships), I was the fastest white guy in the 200m that I competed in. I was also the only white guy (came in 4th of 6) in the 200m finals. Or look at the running competitions in the Olympics. Bias my ass.

Aaaand...it doesn't apply to individuals. When I see President Obama, I don't think "sports", I think "President of the United States", and "amazing speaker" and "says things like 'that makes no sense' when people make no sense". And

But I guess "reality = bias" these days.

See also: "Stereotype Inaccuracy: A Belief Impervious to Data"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/st...