| Please read all the way it does sound pretty blunt, kinda a rant. I'm a guy. Not a very liberal response. Men make money. Women look good. As terrible as that sounds. It is true.
We are different species and have different advantages as the other. A pretty girl can literally take pics of themselves and marry in to wealth. We see this all the time. A actress is now dating Prince Harry, she is not a programmer or engineer. Bieber "finds" Instagram models and you know... he doesn't look in a cubicle of his agents company. A pretty guy gets no same benefits. There are girls on Instagram with literally millions of followers, even pretty male models barley crack a million. A smart girl who is not pretty gets no real benefits unless she works like a dog and turns her personality in to a man. Look at CEOs, almost +90% male. Leadership trait of males? A smart guy who is ugly has no problems being a star in the work force. These are the way things are. Should they be changed? Absolutely. But let me tell you how... but first a side note
--
I do not approve of women in the military. Unless they can do their job as good or better then their male cohorts. I do not approve of slower lap times or lighter weights just because of gender. The enemy doesn't care about your gender, they will not go easy on you or slower.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/22/letter-to-th... Using this same liberal premise, in high school we had 2 girls on the football team, because they wanted to be equal. one was actually bigger than some guys, but still not as skilled, the other was a "pretty girl". How do you expect a 200lb guy to treat the girls the same? As you know they quit in a couple months and practice was back to "normal". We lost a game because the coach had to put one of them in because their parents we upset....
-- So lets take this in to corporate america. If woman are as equal or better than a male candidate no problem they are good for the job. it is in the companies interest to hire them. But im sure in a extremely male dominated field it makes it very hard. I would assume, and from my own experience, guys get along with guys more than guys and girls. This is just fact. It is the same for women too. They feel more comfortable. So now we have a male dominated industry where many more men are hired than women and this further makes it harder for women to be in the industry. It seems pretty f tough. A short fix, a near sighted fix, is to start your own company, make your own "club" your rules, hire who you want. You can now be biased and shape things to your whim. Sorry if this is a let down but big companies are "club" and then the labor. big difference. So why dont we ask another question, this will be extremely unpopular but the truth. Why dont we each do what we are good at?
Why dont we do what we have the best advantage in? Woman outnumber men in many industries. http://www.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by... Now your question will be, but i dont want to be a nurse i want to be a programmer! I dont want to be x i want to be y! Then you shouldn't complain when it is difficult because you are swimming upstream. I really wanted to be a basketball player when i was young you have no idea. Well guess what? im not above 6 ft, let alone a proper 6,6 so you know what i did? I accepted that i could be a basket ball player and moved on with my life. To be quite honest with you there are many more things i would rather be that a programmer. I would love to be an actor. but i dont think im 9/10 pretty, nor tall. I would love to be a doctor, but i couldn't think of doing surgery I would love to be a race car driver, but im not rich enough to start. I would love to be an entrepreneur, im working on that one. I would love to be a better developer, im working on that one. I would love to be free of debt, closer by the day. what i do now is merely what i believe to be the easiest and most enjoyable path to what i deem a better future for myself. if i had a million dollars i would not be doing much of what im doing now. TLDR; kinda hard to do without sounding like an a$$, but do what you are good at and what is realistic. If you are good technically you will get the job but realize it is an extremely upward battle compared to numerous other "paths". Understand that, don't push for unrealistic compensations for it. Would love to hear everyone's opinions. Sorry if blunt but sometimes i believe the truth gets shot down that only similar comments ever get read on grounds of "approval bias". |
I approach this sort of writing with a stern charity.
Asking questions is never wrong. And I even entertain discriminatory assertions that have a compelling basis in reality. This is the charity.
But you damn well better be right, or at least not obviously wrong. If you have no compelling reason to believe what you preach -- if even the most cursory investigation would disposes you of a controversial and harmful if incorrect belief -- then you're just a bigot. This is the sternness.
So, let us evaluate your claims. Namely, that "you [women] shouldn't complain when it is difficult because you [they] are swimming upstream". I.e., that women are somehow naturally predisposed to poor software engineering.
Engineering requires a combination of technical aptitude and clear communication.
Let us first consider technical aptitude. It is instructive to consider other fields that over-lap with Computer Science and Software Engineering -- Mathematics (obviously important in CS and SE), medicine (requires systems-oriented thinking), and other sciences (requiring general technical skills).
Mathematics is more gender balanced than Computer Science. The most technically difficult aspects of Computer Science are basically applied mathematics. So technical competence cannot explain the CS gender disparity.
Medical Doctors are, on average, smarter, better credentialed, harder workers, and even better compensated than software engineers. And yet, the gender disparity among MD's is much lower than among software engineers.
Women outnumber men in several sciences, none of which you could reasonably call "pink-collar" fields without completely ignoring a good 20 years of history (let alone 100 years).
So, is it possible that women are somehow innately impoverished in the technical aptitude required in Software Engineering? I don't think so. But even if they are, this alone does not explain the gender gap in Computer Science.
Technical aptitude does not provide a compelling justification for your viewpoint.
That leaves us with communication. A technical genius who cannot communicate -- in code, in documentation, and in conversation -- makes for a dreadful engineer.
Perhaps innate communication ability explains the gap between men and women in software engineering? But all the women I know write much more clearly than you have in this post! And surely you are an excellent engineer.
So it seems I've run out of charity.